Jayashree W/O Ramesh Keralli Vs the Deputy Commissioner

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 31-01-2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WP NO.104510/2021 (GM-RES) BY CALLING FOR RECORDS OF THE SAID PROCEEDINGS AND THEREBY ALLOW THE PETITION AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND

¶26

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12801-DB WA No. 100586 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)

¶31

This intra-Court appeal is filed challenging order dated 31.01.2025 passed in W.P.No.104510/2021, wherein the writ petition filed by the appellant was allowed by quashing order of the Deputy Commissioner, Koppal dated 21.09.2021 by restoring the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 28.05.2021 and further directing the appellant to pay maintenance of Rs.7,500/per month to the respondent No.3.

¶32

Heard.

¶33

Smt.Kavya C.Shettar, learned counsel appearing for

¶34

the appellant submits that the appeal is insofar as direction to pay maintenance of Rs.7,500/- per month is concerned, which is on the higher side. It is submitted that it would be difficult for the appellant to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.7,500/- as the petitioner is a homemaker and does not have any source of income. It is further submitted that the suit for partition is pending between the father and the brothers of the appellant and the respondent No.3 is in possession and enjoyment of the

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12801-DB WA No. 100586 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

properties getting income from the said properties. Hence, she seeks to allow the appeal.

¶38

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, meticulously

¶39

perused the material on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced.

¶40

The records indicate that the 3^rd respondent executed registered gift deed dated 12.02.2019 in favour of the appellant who is his daughter. The 3^rd respondent filed a petition before the Assistant Commissioner and President, Maintenance Tribunal for Senior Citizens, Koppal, for maintenance and also for cancellation of the registered gift deed. The appeal came to be dismissed on 28.05.2021. Being aggrieved, the 3^rd respondent preferred an appeal before the respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner, Koppal. The said appeal was allowed by cancelling the registered gift deed in question. The same was assailed in the writ petition, learned Single Judge allowed the petition by setting the order of the Deputy Commissioner. The prayer of the 3^rd respondent for maintenance was allowed by the

¶41

learned Single Judge by upholding the order of the Assistant Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal of the 3^rd respondent.

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12801-DB WA No. 100586 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

In our considered view, the gift deed is one without condition and taking note of the mandate of law and the requirements of the 3^rd respondent, the learned Single Judge exercised judicial discretion, we do not find any error or perversity in the order of the learned Single Judge ordering for maintenance of Rs.7,500/per month.

¶45