Mr Nigel P L Monteriro Vs the Deputy Commissioner

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:45058 WP No. 3108 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 3108 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR NIGEL P L MONTERIRO S/O LATE SB MONTERIO @ SALVADORE MONTERIO AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT D NO 17-4-156, SB MONTERIO FATHIMA LANE, NEAR RETREAT HOUSE JEPPINAMOGARU VILLAGE KANKANADY P O MANGALORE - 575 002

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. AKSHATHA SHETTY K.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER Location: HIGH COURT OF (MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND KARNATAKA SENIOR CITIZENS COURT) D K DISTRICT MANGALORE - 575 001

¶13

MRS HILDA MONTERIO W/O LATE SB MONTERIO AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/AT D NO 17-4-156, SB MONTERIO FATHIMA LANE, NEAR RETREAT HOUSE JEPPINAMOGARU VILLAGE

¶14

2 -

¶15

NC: 2025:KHC:45058 WP No. 3108 of 2023

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

KANKANADY P O MANGALORE - 575 002

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRY SHENOY M., ADVOCATE FOR R2

¶20

SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.12.2022, IN M.S.C.C.R.24/202122 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER D.K. DISTRICT MANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-A BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 15.02.2022 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, D.K. DISTRICT, MANGALURU, VIDE ANNX-B.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

In this writ petition petitioner is assailing the order dated 03.12.2022 in MSCCR.24/2021-22 passed by the respondent No.1 (Annexure 'A') setting aside the order dated 15.02.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Mangalore Sub-Division, Dakshina Kannada (Annexure 'B').

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:45058 WP No. 3108 of 2023

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

The relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition are that the petitioner is the son of the respondent No.2. It is further stated in the petition that the respondent No.2 had two daughters namely, Miss. Sheela Margaret Monteiro and Mrs. Salma Monteiro. It is also stated that the father of the petitioner and husband of the respondent No.2 -S B Monteiro @ Salvadore Monteiro Benna Monteiro is no more. It is further stated in the petition that the respondent No. 2 has filed the petition under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') before the Assistant Commissioner, Mangalore Sub-Division, Mangalore, in Dispute number CD/MSCCR:24/2021-2022 and the Assistant Commissioner by order dated 15.02.2022 allowed the petition filed by respondent No. 2 and directed the petitioner herein to pay a sum of ₹ 4,000/- per month as a maintenance to the respondent No.2. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.2 has preferred an appeal before the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 by order dated 03.12.2022 (Annexure 'A') passed the impugned order and directed the petitioner herein to pay sum of ₹ 10,000/- per month as a maintenance to the

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:45058 WP No. 3108 of 2023

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

respondent No.2. Feeling aggrieved by the same the petitioner has presented this writ petition.

¶34

I have heard Smt. Akshatha Shetty K for the

¶35

petitioner and Sri Raghavendra Shenoy M for the second respondent.

¶36

Smt. Akshatha Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the operative portion of the order at Annexure 'A' and submitted that, OS No. 451/2022 is filed before the competent civil Court, wherein the subject matter in the suit is with regard to prove the Will dated 10.11.2014, executed by the Father of the petitioner and the said proceedings is pending consideration before the competent Court and that apart OS No.59/2024 is filed by the respondent No.2 herein seeking relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the subject matter and further OS No.1325/2023 is filed by the respondent No.2 herein seeking injunctive relief against the petitioner herein and despite the same, the respondent No.1 has exceeded its jurisdiction to nullify the Will dated 10.11.2014 and apportioned the property to an extent of 1/4^th share each in respect of the

¶37

5 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:45058 WP No. 3108 of 2023

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

parties which is outside the scope of the Act and therefore sought for interference of this Court.

¶41

Per contra, Mr.Raghavendra Shenoy M, learned

¶42

counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 sought to justify the impugned order at Annexure 'A' and submitted that the respondent No. 2 is suffering from a disease and requires financial assistance for treatment of more than ₹ 10,000/- and therefore sought to justify the impugned order at Annexure 'A'. It is also stated by the respondent No. 2 that the petitioner herein has put up CCTVs in the premises in which the respondent No. 2 is residing, which violates the right of privacy of the respondent No. 2 and accordingly sought for appropriate action to be taken against the petitioner herein.

¶43

Sri Mahantesh Shettar, learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1 sought to justify the impugned order at Annexure 'A'.

¶44

In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute with regard to the relationship as such. Having taken note of the

¶45

6 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:45058 WP No. 3108 of 2023

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, OS No.451/2022 is filed by the petitioner herein seeking declaration with regard to the Will dated 10.11.2014 said to have been executed by the father of the petitioner. OS No.59/2024 is filed by the respondent No.2 against the petitioner herein along with two daughters mentioned above seeking relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties. O.S.No.1325/2023 is filed by respondent No.2 against the petitioner herein seeking injunctive relief in respect of putting up CCTVs in the premises in which the respondent No.2 is residing.

¶49

Taking into consideration the aforementioned civil suits which are pending consideration before the competent civil Court in respect to the controversy arisen between the parties, I am of the view that, the respondent No.1 has committed an error in nullifying the execution of the Will dated 10.11.2014 which is in the matter of civil nature and same has to be adjudicated by the competent civil Court. It is to be noted that respondent No.1 has divided the property to an extent of 1/4^th share each in respect of the petitioner along with his

¶50

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:45058 WP No. 3108 of 2023

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

sisters and the respondent No.2, which is pending consideration before the competent civil Court in OS No. 59/2024. It is to be considered that the object of the aforementioned Act is made for effective provision for maintenance and welfare of the parents and senior citizens are guaranteed and the matters connected thereto are incidental thereto. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 requires to be set aside as the same would go against the pith and substance of the Act. Accordingly, I pass the following-

¶53

ORDER

¶54

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶55

(ii) The order dated 03.12.2022 passed by the respondent No.1 at Annexure A is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to respondent No.1 for fresh consideration in the light of the observation made above and pass appropriate orders by looking into the object and purpose for which the aforementioned enactment is made.

¶56

(iii) In the meanwhile, the petitioner herein is directed to pay the maintenance of ₹ 4,000/- as ordered by the Assistant Commissioner of Mangalore Sub-Division, Dakshina Kannada District as ordered as per Annexure B to the writ petition till

¶57

8 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:45058 WP No. 3108 of 2023

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

the conclusion of the proceedings before the respondent No.1.

¶61

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶62

YKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40 CT-SG

Mr Nigel P L Monteriro v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Nigel P L Monteriro v. the Deputy Commissioner

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

Prakash Gopalkrishna Hegde Vs the Union of India

Mahendra Labs Private Limited Vs Karnataka State Drugs Logistics

Government of Karnataka Vs National Comission for Schedule Castes

Sri. Gopal T R Vs the Range Forest Officer

Sri Tarun Gawri Vs State of Karnataka

K. C. Rajanna Vs the State of Karnataka