Allowed

Basamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Sept 2024WP/10899/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An elderly petitioner sought enforcement of an earlier order requiring her children to pay her monthly maintenance and provide shelter. The court directed the Assistant Commissioner to consider her representation in light of the order dated 03.11.2022 within one month, and reserved liberty to seek recovery of maintenance under Section 11 of the Act.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.2 directed to consider petitioner's representation per order dated 03.11.2022 within one month; liberty to seek recovery of maintenance under Section 11 of the Act, 2007.

Basamma Vs State of Karnataka — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:37543 WP No. 10899 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 10899 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

BASAMMA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS W/O LATE CHANDRAPPA RESIDING AT LAKSHMI SAGAR VILALGE HADIKERE POST, AMRUTHPUR HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577228.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SUNIL KUMAR H, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OBAVVA CIRCLE CHITRADURGA 577501.

¶12

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INDIRANGAR, TARIKERE 577228.

¶14

SMT L C SOBHARANI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS W/O SURESH G N LAKSHMI SAGAR VILLAGE HADIKERE, AMRUTAPURA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT KARNATAKA 577228.

¶15

SMT L C ASHA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS W/O GANGADARAPPA KACHAPURA VILLAGE

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:37543 WP No. 10899 of 2024

¶18

SRIRAMPURA HOBLI HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRDURGA DISTRICT KARNATAKA 577527.

¶19

SMT L C INDRAMA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS D/O LATE CHANDRAPPA KACHAPURA VILLAGE SRIRAMAURA HOBLI HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT KARANTAKA 577527.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R2; R3, R4 & R5 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN ORDER NO. J1 MAG CR 187/21-22 DTD 03.11.22 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner executed a registered gift deed dated 22.05.2013 in favor of respondent No.3, conveying an extent of 1 acre and 32 guntas in Sy.No.34/1 of Lakshmisagar Village, Amruthapura Hobli, Terikere Taluk.

¶27

The petitioner contends that only an extent of 5 guntas was intended to be conveyed under the gift deed in favor of respondent No.3, and further asserts that respondent No.3 has failed to provide basic amenities and physical support to the

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:37543 WP No. 10899 of 2024

¶30

petitioner, who is the mother. Consequently, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 ("Act, 2007"), before respondent No.2, seeking cancellation of the gift deed concerning the entire extent of land. An appeal was subsequently filed before respondent No.1. The respondent No.1, by the impugned order, confined the cancellation to an extent of 5 guntas and directed respondent No.3 to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/-. Additionally, respondents No.4 and 5 were directed to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.1,500/- each to the petitioner.

¶31

Respondents No.3 to 5, despite being served with notice, have not appeared in person or through counsel and have been placed ex parte.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate representing the respondent - State.

¶33

The petitioner’s grievance is that although respondent No.1 directed respondents No.3 to 5 to pay maintenance and provide shelter in the same house, respondent No.3 has failed to comply with these directions. Furthermore, the representations submitted by the petitioner to respondents No.1 and 2, seeking enforcement of the order issued by respondent No.1, have gone unanswered.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:37543 WP No. 10899 of 2024

¶36

The learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent - State submits that the representation submitted by the petitioner will be considered in light of the order dated 03.11.2022.

¶37

In view of the above, this Court proceed to pass the

¶38

following;

¶39

ORDER

¶40

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶41

(ii) Respondent No.2 to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner in light of the order dated 03.11.2022, and pass appropriate order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶42

(iii) Liberty is reserved with the petitioner to seek recovery of maintenance from the respondents No.3 to 5 before the appropriate Forum as stated under Section 11 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

¶43

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶44

BKM

Basamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S India Shelter Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs Mrs Mounika G

H S Madhusudan Vs the City Union Bank Ltd.

Smt. Kunukuntla Jyothi Vs Union of India

M/S Kids Clinic India Ltd. Vs Karnataka Medical Council

Mr. M v Prasanna Vs the Chief Manager

Canara Bank Vs M/S Star Grandeur