Sri H P Karthik Vs Deputy Commissioner

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R1 IN NO.J.1.M.G.CR.54/2022-23 DTD 01.09.2022, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-H CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R2 IN NO.HI.NA,14/2021 DTD 18.04.2022 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:31089 WP No. 19763 of 2022

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

This petition is by the son and daughter-in-law respectively, of respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 had approached respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner, invoking the provisions of Section 5(2) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007, complaining ill-treatment at the hands of the petitioners. Considering his case, the Assistant Commissioner had found petitioners guilty of causing harassment to respondent No.3 and accordingly held that respondent No.3 was entitled to reside in his own house till his lifetime and petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were directed to vacate the house within a period of 2 months. Against which, the petitioners herein had approached and filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, which came to be disposed of by confirming the order passed by the

¶30

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:31089 WP No. 19763 of 2022

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Assistant Commissioner. Being aggrieved, the present

¶33

petition.

¶34

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

¶35

petitioner No.1 who is now admitted in the rehabilitation center and petitioner No.2 having certain differences with petitioner No.1, are staying separately. Therefore she submits that there is no question of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 causing any problem to respondent No.3.

¶36

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 on the

¶37

other hand does not dispute that petitioner No.1 is admitted to rehabilitation center for de-addiction of alcohol. He also submits that petitioner No.2 is residing separately. He further submits that it is respondent No.3 who is now taking care of petitioner No.1. He also submits that respondent No.3 being the father of petitioner No.1 would take care of petitioner No.1 despite the order directing him to vacate the premises.

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:31089 WP No. 19763 of 2022

¶39