Quashed¶55

Smt. Obbamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC29 Jul 2025WP/15412/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Senior Citizens Act 2007; Section 23 maintenance order Rs.10,000/mensem; Section 16 appeal by non-senior-citizen transferee; maintainability of appeal; property transferred before application; gift deed; decree for specific performance executed against fifth respondent; pending Regular First Appeal inter se parties; Deputy Commissioner Chickballapur order quashed; Assistant Commissioner order quashed; petitioner relegated to fresh remedy under the Act.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of quashing the third respondent's order dated 16.01.2024 (Annexure-D) and the second respondent's order dated 14.02.2025 (Annexure-E), with liberty to the petitioner to avail remedy afresh under the Senior Citizens Act if there is cause. ¶55

Smt. Obbamma Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶55

Issue for consideration

Whether the sixth respondent, who is not a senior citizen or a parent, could have availed the appellate remedy under Section 16 of the Senior Citizens Act against the third respondent's order (contention urged on behalf of the petitioner). +2 more

¶50

Ratio / Principle

The second and third respondents overlooked material circumstances in entertaining the application and the appeal; consequently, neither of their orders can be sustained.

¶55

Key takeaways

The petitioner must be relegated to avail remedy afresh under the Senior Citizens Act if there is cause.ratio¶55

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 — Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner obtained an order dated 16.01.2024 from the third respondent (Assistant Commissioner) in MSCR (CHIKKA) 21/22-23 under Section 23 directing payment of Rs.10,000/mensem by the fifth of each month. The sixth respondent appealed under Section 16, and the second respondent (Deputy Commissioner) allowed the appeal on 14.02.2025 with certain observations based on a pending Regular First Appeal inter se the parties. Held: the second and third respondents overlooked material circumstances in entertaining the application and the appeal; neither order can be sustained. Both orders (Annexures D and E) quashed, with liberty to the petitioner to avail remedy afresh under the Act if there is cause. The rival contentions — that the sixth respondent, not being a senior citizen or a parent, could not have appealed under Section 16, and that the application could not have been entertained at the first instance because the property had been transferred by the fifth respondent before commencement — were noted but left undecided by the relegation of the petitioner to a fresh remedy.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:29110 WP No. 15412 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 15412 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. OBBAMMA W/O LATE APANNA, AGED ABOUT 65 YRS., SOPPAHALLI, MAGANDLAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPURA TALUK 562101.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. PRASHANTH P N.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N

¶12

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP.BY ITS SECRETARY M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT, CHICKBALLAPURA PINCODE-562101.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT. CHICKBALLAPUR PINCODE-562101.

¶16

THE TAHSILDAR SIDHLAGATTA TALUK

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:29110 WP No. 15412 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT PINCODE-562105.

¶21

MANJUNATH S/O OBBAMMA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT SOPPAHALLI, MAGANDLAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPURA TALUK PINCODE-562101.

¶22

SMT.GAYATHRI D.S.KANNAPAHALLI VILLAGE, BASCHETTALLI HOBLI, SHIDLAGATTA TALUK. CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT PINCODE-562101.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI.SHAMANTH NAIK., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. KARTHIK B Y., ADVOCATE FOR C/R6)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF ORDER DATED 14/2/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-E PASSED IN THE CASE G.A.K/APPEAL/02/2024-25 ON THE FILE OF 2^ND RESPONDENT AUTHORITY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CHICKABALLAPUR; B) QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 14/2/2025 PASSED IN THE G.A.K/APPEAL/02/2024-25 VIDE (ANNEXURE-E) PASSED BY 2^ND RESPONDENT AUTHORITY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:29110 WP No. 15412 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

CHICKBALLAPURA, SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16/01/2024 PASSED IN MSCR (CHIKKA) 21/2223 PASSED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT AUTHORITY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHICKBALLAPURA, UNDER SECTION 23 OF THE MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT, 2007.

¶30

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

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

The petitioner has initiated proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 [for short, ' the Senior Citizens Act '] in the proceedings in MSCR (CHIKKA) 21/22-23 with the third respondent unsuccessfully directing the fourth respondent to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/mensem on or before the fifth of each month. The sixth respondent has called this order in question under Section 16 of the Senior Citizens Act . The

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:29110 WP No. 15412 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

second respondent has allowed the appeal with

¶38

certain observations based on a pending Regular First Appeal inter se the parties.

¶39

Sri Prashanth P N, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shamanth Naik, learned High Court Government Pleader for the official respondents and Sri Karthik B Y, learned counsel for the sixth respondent, are heard for final disposal in the light of the following undisputed facts.

¶40

[a] The revenue entries for the subject

¶41

property stood in the name of the petitioner's husband and the fifth respondent who has asserted a gift deed from his father, has transferred this property to the sixth respondent.

¶42

[b] There are civil proceedings amongst family members including not just the

¶43

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:29110 WP No. 15412 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

petitioner and the fifth respondent but also other members of the family.

¶47

[c] The fifth respondent, asserting a gift

¶48

from his father has entered into an agreement to transfer the property in favour of the sixth respondent, before the commencement of the proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act .

¶49

[d] The sixth respondent has obtained conveyance of the property in execution of the decree for specific performance against the fifth respondent.

¶50

If it is argued on behalf of the petitioner that because the sixth respondent is not a senior citizen or a parent could not have availed appellate remedy under Section 16 of the Senior Citizens Act, it is contended on behalf of the sixth respondent that no application could have been entertained at the first

¶51

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:29110 WP No. 15412 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

instance because the property had been transferred by the fifth respondent even before that date.

¶55

This Court is of the considered view that the second and the third respondents have overlooked material circumstances in entertaining the application and the appeal. Therefore, neither of their orders can be sustained and the petitioner must be relegated to avail remedy afresh under the Senior Citizens Act if there is cause. In the light of the afore, the petition stands disposed of quashing the third respondent's order dated 16.01.2024 as also the second respondent's order dated 14.02.2025 [ Annexures - D and E ] but with liberty to the petitioner as aforesaid.

¶56

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶57

¶58

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 44

Smt. Obbamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Obbamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Propcare Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India Ministry of Finance

R R Engineering Company Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

M/S. Om Sai Security Services and Man Power Agency Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Kalidasa Kurubara Janagada Kshemabhivruddi Sanga R Vs the Deputy Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

M/S. Hardik Medi Tech Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Patil Ranjith Patel Vs the Commissioner of Police