Pushpa Siddesh Gundi Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Pushpa Siddesh Gundi Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; order dated 03.11.2022 (Annexure-A) and order dated 22.08.2022 (Annexure-B) set aside; parties at liberty to agitate their claims before the competent forum; all pending I.As. in the writ petition closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent Nos.1 and 2 (Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner) had jurisdiction under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to direct dispossession of the petitioners and grant police protection to respondent No.3 while civil suits between the parties were pending and the rights of the parties stood crystallized.

Court's answer

The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is not intended to override orders passed by competent courts; a party who has obtained orders from the competent Civil Court cannot be permitted to come before the authorities under the Act to enforce civil remedies, and respondent Nos.1 and 2 cannot exercise jurisdiction in such circumstances.

Ratio / Principle

When a suit is pending, police protection can be obtained only by filing an appropriate application before the appropriate Court; an application to enforce an order of injunction in a different manner cannot be filed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

Key takeaways

The manner in which the orders were passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 was not within the framework of the Senior Citizens Act; as the rights of the parties were already crystallized in the suit and RFAs were pending, respondent Nos.1 and 2 ought not to have passed an order beyond the jurisdiction conferred on them under the Act.ratio¶69

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 — Jurisdiction of Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner — Petitioners (widow and sons of a deceased co-sharer) and respondent No.3 were co-sharers under a common judgment in clubbed partition suits (O.S.No.136/2014 and O.S.No.152/2014) conferring 1/5th share, with RFAs pending; respondent No.3 had also obtained interim injunction in O.S.No.148/2022 — On her application under Sections 4 and 23 of the Act (CR No.4/2022), respondent No.2 ordered dispossession of the petitioners with police aid, confirmed in appeal by respondent No.1 — Held: the Act is not intended to override orders of competent civil courts; a party cannot invoke the authorities under the Act to enforce civil remedies already secured from the civil court; where a suit is pending, police protection is to be sought by appropriate application before the appropriate court, and an application to enforce an injunction cannot lie under the Act; the orders were beyond jurisdiction — Writ petition allowed; orders dated 22.08.2022 (Annexure-B) and 03.11.2022 (Annexure-A) set aside; parties at liberty to agitate claims before the competent forum; pending I.As. closed.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17835 WP No. 22054 of 2022

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

WRIT PETITION NO. 22054 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

PUSHPA SIDDESH GUNDI W/O LATE G.S.SIDDESH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST AND BUSINESS R/O. 73, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, P J EXTENSION

DAVANGERE- 577 001

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

G.S.NIKHIL S/O LATE G.S.SIDDESH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O. 73, 2^ND MAIN ROAD P.J.EXTENSION DAVANGERE -577 001

NITHIN S.G., S/O LATE G.S.SIDDESH AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT R/O. 73, 2^ND MAIN ROAD P.J.EXTENSION DAVANGERE -577 001

&PETITIONERS

(BY SMT. HIREMATH AKKAMAHADEVI, ADVOCATE)

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17835 WP No. 22054 of 2022

HC-KAR

AND:

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DAVANAGERE DISTRICT- 577 002

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE -577 001

SMT. G.S.SHOBHA W/O LATE G.M.SHIVANANDAPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/O 73, 2^ND MAIN ROAD P.J.EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE -577 001

POLICE SUB INSPECTOR P.J.EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE- 01

&RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.MAHANTESH SHETTAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 & R4 SRI.K.DHIRAJ KUMAR AND SMT.P.ARCHANA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 03.11.2022 IN NO.HI NA KA A/C R/04/2022.23, PASSED BY THE R1, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND THE ORDER DATED 22.08.2022 IN NO.HI NA /C.R.4/2022.23 PASSED BY THE R2 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 8B9 GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:17835 WP No. 22054 of 2022

HC-KAR

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

ORAL ORDER

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer.

<For these and other grounds to be urged at the time of hearing the petitioners pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue

(a) A writ of certiorari, quashing the order dated 03.11.2022 in No. Hi Na Ka A/c R/04/2022-23, passed by the 1^st respondent, produced as Annexure-A, and the order dated 22.08.2022 in No. Hi.Na./C R:4/2022-23 passed by the 2^nd respondent, produced as Annexure-B.

(b) Such other writs or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, in the interest of justice.=

The facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1 is the wife of late G.S Siddesh and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the sons. The husband of petitioner No.1, who is deceased, earlier had filed O.S.No.136/2014 (Old O.S.No.353/2004) before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge at Davanagere for partition and separate possession of 1/5^th share. During the pendency of the suit, the husband of petitioner No.1 died and the petitioners were brought on record. It is stated that the father-in-law9s

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17835 WP No. 22054 of 2022

HC-KAR

father i.e. grandfather of her husband owned several properties. After his death, all the legal heirs have succeeded to the properties. The property in question i.e. municipal door No.73 measuring 120x148 feet situated at 2^nd Main Road, P.J. Extension, Davanagere City has a big mansion of two floors constructed on it with a total built-up area of 15,000 Sqft. The partition suit was filed seeking 1/5^th share in the joint family properties. Respondent No.3 and her sons had also filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.152/2014. As parties in both the suits were one and the same, they were clubbed together and a common judgment was passed. The suit was partly decreed and held that the family of the petitioners and the respondent's family and the other co-sharers have 1/5^th share in the suit scheduled properties and in respect to the two items the suit is dismissed. Against that the petitioners as well as the respondents are preferred appeals. It is the case of respondent No.3 that the third respondent and her son used to visit and stay in the suit schedule property very often. The petitioners started to reside in the subject property from 16.03.2022 when they went to seek the blessings of the third respondent on the occasion of second son's birthday. The petitioners requested

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17835 WP No. 22054 of 2022

HC-KAR

the third respondent who is the elderly person in the family to

divide the property according to the decree, but the third respondent refused to do so and pressurised to withdraw all cases. The third respondent and her sons and other co-sharers pressurised the petitioners to accept the share, which would be given to her without any objections. The petitioner and his sons began to live in two rooms in the said subject house on the ground floor as they had no other accommodation. The first floor is occupied by the third respondent.

It is the case that the third respondent at the behest of her sons, daughter and other co-sharers had kept the petitioner under detention by locking the gate and started to pressurize petitioner No.1 to withdraw the criminal case which was filed against one Rajashekar Gundi and G. S. Vanay(1^st son of the 3^rd respondent herein) and second son of the third respondent. Thereafter, the respondents filed suit in O.S.No.148/2022 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Davanagere for declaration of the acts of the defendant, interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property as illegal and sought injunction. The Court has

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17835 WP No. 22054 of 2022

HC-KAR

dismissed I.A.No.2 and allowed IA No.3 by granting interim injunction. Thereafter she has approached respondent No.3 under Sections 4 and 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 by filing CR No.4/2022 seeking a direction to dispossess the petitioner with the help of the jurisdictional police and to give her protection from the police concerned. After service of notice, the petitioner has filed the objections and respondent No.2 without giving any opportunity to the petitioner has passed an order allowing the application. Against the said order, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the first respondent Deputy Commissioner and the first respondent granted interim stay of the second respondent vide order dated 29.08.2022. Thereafter, after appearance of the respondent, without assigning any reasons, the first respondent rejected the appeal dated 03.11.2022. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners are before this Court.

Learned counsel appearing to the petitioners submits that by the order impugned, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have granted police protection to the third respondent pending adjudication of the suit. It is submitted that respondent Nos.1

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17835 WP No. 22054 of 2022

HC-KAR

and 2 exercising their powers under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 ( for short 8Senior Citizens Act9) has no jurisdiction to pass such an order, when the civil disputes are pending between the parties. Already the rights of the parties are crystallized in the suit, against that, RFA is pending. It is submitted that the third respondent has already filed a suit for injunction and obtained an order of interim injunction and again has came before the authorities by seeking invocation of powers under the Senior Citizens Act. It is submitted that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have no such authority to pass an order by directing the police protection in pending suit.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submits that considering the harassment that was meted out by the petitioner on respondent No.3 and considering the age, respondent Nos.1 and 2 had granted the protection order in the interest of justice and no interference is called for.

Learned AGA appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1,2 and 4 submits that considering the circumstances of respondent No.3, the order is passed which is in consonance

8 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17835 WP No. 22054 of 2022

HC-KAR

with the purport of the Act. It is submitted that no interference is called for.

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The purport of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is to provide for more effective provisions for the maintenance and

welfare of parents and senior citizens guaranteed and recognised under Constitution and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 5 of the Senior Citizens Act deals with the maintenance. Chapter II of the Senior Citizens Act deals with maintenance of parents and senior citizens. Section 6 of the Senior Citizens Act deals with jurisdiction and procedure. Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act deals with transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances.

A bare perusal of the Senior Citizens Act reveals that it is not the intention of the Legislature to override the orders passed by Competent Courts and under the guise of this Act, having obtained orders from the competent Civil Court, again to enforce the civil remedies, one cannot be permitted to come before the Court and respondent Nos.1 and 2 cannot

9 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17835 WP No. 22054 of 2022

HC-KAR

exercise jurisdiction. The manner in which the orders were passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 is not within the framework of the Senior Citizens Act and when the suit is pending, if somebody wants police protection that can be obtained by filing an appropriate application before the appropriate Court. But to enforce an order of injunction in a different manner, an application cannot be filed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. As the rights of the parties are already crystallized in the suit and RFAs are pending, at that juncture, respondent Nos.1 and 2 ought not to have passed an order which is beyond the jurisdiction conferred on respondents under the Senior Citizens Act. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following:

ORDER

i. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the order dated 03.11.2022 and 22.08.2022.

ii. The parties are at liberty to agitate their claims before the competent forum.

10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17835 WP No. 22054 of 2022

HC-KAR

iii. All pending I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed.

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

PKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 03.11.2022 in No.HI NA KA A/C R/04/2022.23 passed by respondent No.1 (Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere) rejecting the petitioners' appeal, thereby confirming the order dated 22.08.2022 in No.HI NA /C.R.4/2022.23 passed by respondent No.2 (Assistant Commissioner) allowing the application under the Senior Citizens Act; both orders challenged as Annexures A and B.¶27
Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere (respondent No.1) and Assistant Commissioner, Davanagere (respondent No.2) · 03.11.2022 (Annexure-A); 22.08.2022 (Annexure-B)
Prior proceeding
Deceased husband of petitioner No.1 (late G.S. Siddesh) filed O.S.No.136/2014 (Old O.S.No.353/2004) before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge at Davanagere for partition and separate possession of 1/5th share in joint family properties.¶37
Prior proceeding
During the pendency of the partition suit, the husband of petitioner No.1 died and the petitioners were brought on record.¶37
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.3 and her sons filed a parallel suit for partition, O.S.No.152/2014.¶41
Prior proceeding
Both partition suits were clubbed together and a common judgment was passed.¶41
Prior proceeding
Suit partly decreed: the petitioners' family, respondent No.3's family and the other co-sharers held entitled to 1/5th share in the suit scheduled properties.¶41
Prior proceeding
Suit dismissed in respect of two items.¶41
Prior proceeding
Against the common judgment, the petitioners as well as the respondents preferred appeals (RFAs pending).¶41
Prior proceeding
Criminal case filed against Rajashekar Gundi and G. S. Vanay (sons of respondent No.3); respondent No.3 allegedly pressurised petitioner No.1 to withdraw it.¶47
Prior proceeding
Respondents filed O.S.No.148/2022 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Davanagere for declaration and injunction concerning interference with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.¶47
Prior proceeding
In O.S.No.148/2022, the trial Court dismissed I.A.No.2 and allowed I.A.No.3, granting interim injunction.¶51
Prior proceeding
Proceedings under Sections 4 and 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (CR No.4/2022) seeking a direction to dispossess the petitioner with the help of the jurisdictional police and to give protection.¶51
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.2 (Assistant Commissioner) allowed the application without giving the petitioner an opportunity, by order dated 22.08.2022 (Annexure-B).¶51
Prior proceeding
Petitioners appealed to respondent No.1 (Deputy Commissioner), who granted interim stay of respondent No.2's order vide order dated 29.08.2022.¶51
Prior proceeding
First respondent rejected the appeal without assigning any reasons, by order dated 03.11.2022 (Annexure-A).¶51