Disposed

Smt. Sowmya T., v. Smt. Choodamma

Karnataka HC14 Aug 2025WP/21065/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court held that a writ petition challenging an Assistant Commissioner's order cancelling gift deeds under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act must be disposed of subject to the decision in a pending civil suit involving third-party interests in the properties. The order did not adjudicate final title or maintenance rights, leaving those questions for the civil court

What did the court decide?

The impugned order cancelling the gift deeds stands subject to the decision in the pending civil suit; the first respondent is entitled to rental income from the properties.

Smt. Sowmya T., Vs Smt. Choodamma — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:31500 WP No. 21065 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 21065 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. SOWMYA T., W/O LATE SRI. SRIKANTH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.177/4, 9TH A CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, 2ND MAIN ROAD, THYAGARAJANAGAR, BENGALURU-560070.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. NAGESH K N., ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

SMT. CHOODAMMA, W/O LATE VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT

¶16

NO.321, 7TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS,

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:31500 WP No. 21065 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

KAVERI NAGARA,

¶20

BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560070.

¶21

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,

¶22

BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION,

¶23

AT BENGALURU-560002.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. Y. R. SADASIVA REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. C. NANJEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1;

¶26

SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR R2]

¶27

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.05.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-E PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 HEREIN IN CASE NO.MSC-CR-86/2023 DATED 02.05.2025.

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:31500 WP No. 21065 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

The dispute is between a daughter-in-law and her mother-in-law, and this dispute relates to two immovable properties that are the subject matter of the Gift Deeds dated 26.09.2018 and 17.01.2019 executed in favour of Mr. V. Srikanth. The Gift Deeds are executed by his mother [ the first respondent and the petitioner's mother-in-law ]. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner [ the second respondent ] has interfered under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 [for short, ' the Act’ ] acting on the first respondent's application setting aside the Gift Deeds directing restoration of the properties in her favour.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:31500 WP No. 21065 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

2. The second respondent has essentially

¶38

intervened to set aside the Gift Deeds opining that [a] the first respondent is neglected, [b] she is aged 70 years and unable to work to maintain herself, and

¶39

[c] she depends upon the rental income of these properties for her sustenance. The second respondent has also observed that the Gift Deeds were executed by the first respondent in favour of her son on the assurance that he would ensure that she is looked after.

¶40

3. Mr. Nagesh K N, the learned counsel for

¶41

the petitioner seeks this Court's interference on the grounds that the daughter-in-law will not be a " relative " as is defined under Section 2(g) of the Act of 2007 and that the first respondent could not have successfully maintained the application without the petitioner's major children being made a party as they would also be the legal heirs of the deceased, Mr. V. Srikanth.

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:31500 WP No. 21065 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Mr. Y. R. Sadasiva Reddy, the learned

¶45

Senior counsel for the first respondent argues that [i] the petitioner had filed multiple cases against the deceased [Mr. V. Srikanth], [ii] the first respondent has filed a complaint against the petitioner, upon the demise of Mr. V. Srikanth, for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC, and that investigation is still pending, and [iii] the first respondent’s daughters have filed a civil suit for partition alleging that the first respondent could not have gifted all the properties in favour of her son in denial of their interest. The learned Senior counsel emphasises that these, as also the reasons recorded by the second respondent, would be just to refuse interference.

¶46

This Court must opine that the principal object of the Act is to ensure that senior citizens and the parents are not rendered gullible resulting in

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:31500 WP No. 21065 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

denial of their interest in immovable properties and maintenance. The second respondent's finding that the first respondent depends on the income earned from the properties that are the subject of the Gift Deeds, which now stand cancelled, is not undermined. These will be material circumstances, and these circumstances and other aspects must be considered for the final disposal of the petition as would be the definition of the specific expressions under the Act.

¶51

Further, this Court opines that, insofar as

¶52

the rights to the properties and under the Gift Deeds, such rights must ultimately be decided in the pending suit because third party interests are involved. Further, the first respondent, because of these claims and the possible interests of Sri Mr. V. Srikanth’s children in these properties [even the petitioner’s interest], cannot claim any title to the subject properties asserting any interest under the

¶53

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:31500 WP No. 21065 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

impugned order. If the plaintiffs in this suit cannot establish their interest and therefore the cause against the Gift Deeds, the civil Court will have to adjudicate on whether the Gift Deeds could be annulled on the grounds that are permissible in law. The complete adjudication would be when all these are considered.

¶57

Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petition must be disposed of observing that the second respondent's impugned order must be subject to the decision in the pending suit leaving open all questions to be decided in such a suit. This Court must also observe that it will be just to observe that consequent to the second respondent's order, the first respondent must be entitled to receive the rents but without claiming any equity in the adjudication of the suit. This Court's observation as aforesaid cannot prejudice any right that would be in the petitioner or her children for maintenance from the subject

¶58

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:31500 WP No. 21065 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

properties or the properties that would otherwise be available to the family.

¶62

The petition stands disposed of in the above

¶63

terms.

¶64

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶65

Smt. Sowmya T., v. Smt. Choodamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sowmya T., v. Smt. Choodamma

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 Skd Exports Vs M/S Karnataka Bank Ltd.

Khadar Sab Vs State of Karnataka

Sri H Kempahanumaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Maangalya Developers Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Paneesh Chandra Javali Vs Tumkur Veerashaiva Co. Operative Bank

Mohammed Ashraf Arakkal Koottintakayil Vs the State of Karnataka