Sri v Udaya Kumar Vs the Assistant Commisssioner

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE PROCEEDINGS IN MSC NO.59/2026 PENDING BEFORE THE R1 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU NORTH DIVISION VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND DECLARE THAT THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/ MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL HAS NO JURISDICTION TO ADJUDICATE ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO FRAUD, FORGERY, FABRICATION AND VALIDITY OF REGISTERED INSTRUMENTS SUCH AS GPA DATED 19/04/2021 ANNEXURE-C AND RELEASE DEED DATED 20/04/2022 ANNEXURE-C1.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Learned AGA accepts notice for the respondent No.1.

¶26

Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:-

¶27

"a) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing the proceedings in MSC No.59/2026 pending before the 1^st RespondentAssistant Commissioner and Maintenance Tribunal, Bengaluru North Division vide Annexure-B;

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:32483 WP No. 19337 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

b) Declare that the Assistant Commissioner/Maintenance Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate allegations relating to fraud, forgery, fabrication and validity of registered instruments such as GPA dated 19.04.2021, Annexure-C & release deed dated 20.04.2022, Annexure-G and

¶31

c) Pass such other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interests of justice and equity."

¶32

Respondent No.2 having filed the proceedings before respondent No.1 in MSC No.59/2026 under Sections 5, 23 and 32 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 ('the Act', for short) seeking for setting aside General Power of Attorney and Release Deed, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶33

The submission of Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior counsel is that Section 23 of the Act contemplates a twin test firstly, that a document has to be executed by a senior citizen and secondly, that there must be an obligation undertaken under the said document to take care of the maintenance of the

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:32483 WP No. 19337 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

senior citizen. On that ground, he submits that in the present case, when the respondent No.2 has denied the execution of the document, the respondent No.1 would not have jurisdiction to take up such a matter.

¶38

This Court is unable to accept the same at this stage. What has been challenged is, the notice which has been issued by the respondent No.1. The proceedings have to be taken up by the respondent No.1. The aspect of whether the Assistant Commissioner would have jurisdiction in the circumstances indicated by the petitioner would have to be examined by the respondent No.1 independently.

¶39

The question would be whether the Assistant Commissioner would have jurisdiction over a document which is denied to be executed by the senior citizen. This aspect has been raised by the petitioner in this proceedings. It can also be raised by the petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner,

¶40