Dismissed

Sri. v. Anjinappa @ v v. Anjinappa v Smt. v a. Lakshmi

Karnataka HC19 Aug 2024WA/1154/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal concerning a registered gift deed and maintenance order under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 was heard. The single judge's order was not set aside for interfere with merits. Additional welfare directions were issued regarding withdrawal of deposited money and dispensing with further monthly payments.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.1 allowed to withdraw deposited amount and appellant dispensed from making further monthly payments.

Sri. v. Anjinappa @ v. v. Anjinappa Vs Smt. v. a… — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:33131-DB WA No. 1154 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1154 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. V. ANJINAPPA @ V.V. ANJINAPPA S/O VENKATAGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS R/AT. VAGATAAGARAHARA VILLAGE JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 114

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. SHASHANK S., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

SMT. V. A. LAKSHMI D/O V. ANJINAPPA W/O K. CHANDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT. NO.348, GURUKRUPA NILAYA BELATHURU, KADUGODI POST BENGALURU-560 067

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION DODDABALLAPURA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

¶17

THE SUB REGISTRAR HOSKOTE TALUK-562 114 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:33131-DB WA No. 1154 of 2022

¶20

4. THE TAHASILDAR

¶21

HOSKOTE TALUK-562 114 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. B.L. NAGESH, ADVOCATE & SRI. B.S. JEEVAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH, AGA FOR R2 TO R4)

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.09.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.13455/2017 (GM-RES) AND CONSEQUENTLY TO DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶25

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

¶30

authoritative interpretation of provisions of Section 23 of

¶31

the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior

¶32

Citizens Act, 2007 has been made by the Hon'ble Apex

¶33

Court only in the year 2023 in the case of Sri.Sudesh

¶34

Chhikara vs. Ramti Devi and others in Civil Appeal

¶35

No.174/2021 dated 06.12.2022 .

¶36

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:33131-DB WA No. 1154 of 2022

¶37

It is submitted that the contentions raised in the writ appeal may no longer be relevant in the light of the law laid down law by the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, it is submitted that the findings of the learned Single Judge should not stand in the way of the appellant urging such contentions in accordance with law in appropriate proceedings, if permitted under law.

¶38

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the gift deed which is under challenge is registered on 14.02.2013 and that the application before the authority was made only on 20.12.2016. It is submitted that if the appellant has any remedy in law which is permissible in terms of the facts as stated, is free to exercise the same.

¶39

In view of the said observations, writ appeal is hereby dismissed .

¶40

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the amount deposited by the private respondent No.1 herein is not intended to be

¶41

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:33131-DB WA No. 1154 of 2022

¶42

withdrawn by the appellant. The respondent No.1 is free to withdraw the said amount by making proper application

¶43

in the Registry and on proper identification.

¶44

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that further deposit in terms of the judgment of the learned Single Judge can be done away with, in view of the fact that appellant does not intend to utilize the said amount.

¶45

In view of the said submission, making of further monthly payment in terms of the order of the learned Single Judge is dispensed with.

¶46

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶47

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶48

MH/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Sri. v. Anjinappa @ v v. Anjinappa v Smt. v a. Lakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. v. Anjinappa @ v v. Anjinappa v Smt. v a. Lakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri K Prashanth Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Dhananjaya D S Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Shwetha K B Vs the State of Karnataka

Sagar Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri. C N Murthy Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Sgk Agencies Private Limited Vs M/S Bremels Rubber Industries Private Limited