Partly allowed

Sri M Swamy v. the President

Karnataka HC18 Sept 2026WP/24800/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed orders of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner that had cancelled a registered Partition Deed under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, holding that a partition deed is not covered by Section 23 and cannot be challenged in such proceedings. The Court enhanced the maintenance payable by the petitioners (children) to the respondent parents (senior citizens) from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 17,500 each per month from September 2026 during their lifetime, dismissing the cross-petition for possession.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 21.10.2024 (Annexure-E) and 25.02.2025 (Annexure-G) quashed. Petitioners directed to pay Rs. 17,500 each per month to Respondents 3 and 4 from September 2026 during their lifetime. WP No. 24800/2025 dismissed.

Sri M Swamy Vs the President — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 19139 of 2025 C/W WP No. 24800 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.PRAMOD WRIT PETITION NO.19139 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶7

C/W

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.24800 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶9

IN WP NO.19139/2025:

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI S. RAJANNA S/O. SWAMY S. AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶12

SRI SURESH S. S/O. SWAMY S. AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT #398, 16 CROSS, 4^TH MAIN ROAD VIDYARANYAPURAM MYSURU-570 008

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI BONNY KARYAPPA M. A., ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT MYSURU-570 012

¶20

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

¶21

¶22

WP No. 19139 of 2025 C/W WP No. 24800 of 2025

¶23

WELFARE OF SENIOR CITIZENS MYSURU-570 012

¶24

SRI SWAMY S/O. LATE MAHALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS

¶25

SMT. REVAMMA W/O. SRI SWAMY AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS

¶26

RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4 ARE RESIDING AT #50, 5^TH MAIN SARAVAJANIKA SCHOOL ROAD VIDYARANYAPURAM MYSURU-570 008

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI M. SRINIVAS KUMAR, H.C.G.P. FOR R-1 AND R-2, VIDE ORDER DATED 28.07.2025, NOTICE TO R-3 AND R-4 STANDS DEFERRED FOR PRESENT)

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25-2-2025, PASSED BY THE DEPUTY MYSURU COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT, MYSURUTHE RESPONDENT NO.1 HEREIN IN DISPUTE NO:SCN320/2024 (RD0050000670548) WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-G AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21-10-2024, PASSED BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT, RESPONDENT NO.2 HEREIN IN DISPUTES NO:MYSAC-MAG/SRCZ/47/2024 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-E AND ALSO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND RESPONDENT NO.2 NOT TO GIVE EFFECT TO THEIR ORDERS DATED 25-2-2025, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1, IN DISPUTE NO: SCN-320/2024 (RD0050000670548) WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-G, AND ORDER DATED 21-10-2024, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN DISPUTE NO:MYSAC-MAG/SRCZ/47/2024, WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-E.

¶30

¶31

WP No. 19139 of 2025 C/W WP No. 24800 of 2025

¶32

IN WP NO.24800/2025:

¶33

BETWEEN:

¶34

SRI M. SWAMY S/O. LATE MAHALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS

¶35

SMT. REVAMMA W/O. SRI SWAMY AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS

¶36

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT #50, 5^TH MAIN SARAVAJANIKA HOSTEL ROAD VIDYARANYAPURAM MYSURU-570 008

¶37

...PETITIONERS

¶38

(BY SRI AGNIHOTRI KESHAV RANGANATHACHAR, ADVOCATE)

¶39

AND:

¶40

THE PRESIDENT MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE BOARD FOR SR. CITIZENS CUM THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MYSURU SUB-DIVISION MYSURU-570 008

¶41

SRI RAJANNA S. S/O. SWAMY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O NO.398, 16^TH CROSS 4^TH MAIN, VIDYARANYAPURAM MYSURU-570 008

¶42

SRI SURESH S. S/O. SWAMY AGED BOUT 48 YEARS R/O NO.398, 16^TH CROSS

¶43

¶44

WP No. 19139 of 2025 C/W WP No. 24800 of 2025

¶45

4^TH MAIN, VIDYARANYAPURAM MYSURU-570 008

¶46

...RESPONDENTS

¶47

(BY SRI M. SRINIVAS KUMAR, H.C.G.P. FOR R-1, SRI BONNY KARYAPPA M. A., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3)

¶48

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE FINAL ORDER BEARING NO.MYSAC-MAG/SRCZ/47/2024 DATED 21/10/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ALSO VARIOUS REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONERS ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT HEREIN VIDE ANNEXURE-F DATED 21.04.2025 AND ANNEXURE-H DATED 11.07.2025 RESPECTIVELY AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO FORTHWITH HANDOVER THE PEACEFUL AND VACANT POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTIES TO THEM AS MENTIONED UNDER PARTITION DEED DATED 06-07-2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, IN TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER BEARING NO.MYSAC-MAG/SRCZ/47/2024 DATED 21/10/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-B PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND ALSO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 HEREIN, TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONERS VIDE ANNEXURE-F DATED 21.04.2025 AND ANNEXURE-H DATED 11.07.2025 RESPECTIVELY AND ACCORDINGLY HANDOVER THE PEACEFUL AND VACANT POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTIES AS PER PARTITION DEED DATED 06/07/2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS, IN TERMS OF FINAL ORDER BEARING NO.MYSAC-MAG/SRCZ/47/2024 DATED 21/10/2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN VIDE ANNEXURE-B.

¶49

THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 11.09.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶50

¶51

WP No. 19139 of 2025 C/W WP No. 24800 of 2025

¶52

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.PRAMOD

¶53

CAV ORDER

¶54

The Petitioners in W.P.No.19139/2025 are before this Court seeking the following reliefs;

¶55

"a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash the Order dated 25-2-2025, passed by the Deputy Mysuru Commissioner, District, Mysuruthe Respondent No.1 herein in Dispute No: SCN320/2024 (RD0050000670548) which is at Annexure- G.

¶56

b) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Order dated appropriate writ to quash the Order dated 21-10-2024, passed by the Asst. Commissioner Mysore District, Respondent No.2 herein in Disputes No: MYSAC-MAG/SRCZ/47/2024 which is at Annexure-E.

¶57

c) Issue a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ directing the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 not to give effect to their orders dated 25-2-2025, passed by the Respondent No.1, in Dispute No: SCN-320/2024 (RD0050000670548) which is at Annexure-G, and order dated 21-10-2024, passed by the Respondent No.2 in Dispute No: MYSAC-MAG/SRCZ/47/2024, which is at Annexure-E.

¶58

d) Issue such other Writ or order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case including an order as to cost in the interest of justice and equity."

¶59

The Petitioners in W.P.No.24800/2025 are before this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶60

¶61

WP No. 19139 of 2025 C/W WP No. 24800 of 2025

¶62

"1. Call for records pertaining to the final order bearing No. MYSAC-MAG/SRCZ/47/2024 dated 21/10/2024 vide ANNEXURE-B and also various representations of the Petitioners on the file of the Respondent herein vide ANNEXURE-AF dt.21.04.2025 and ANNEXURE-H dt. 11.07.2025 respectively.

¶63

ii. Pass an appropriate Writ, Order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS, directing the Respondent No.1 to forthwith handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the properties to them as mentioned under Partition Deed dt. 06-07-2013 vide ANNEXURE-A, in terms of the final order bearing No. MYSAC-MAG/SRCZ/47/2024 dated 21/10/2024 vide ANNEXURE-B passed by the Respondent No. 1,

¶64

iii. Pass an appropriate Writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDUMUS directing the Respondent No.1 herein, to consider the Representations of the Petitioners vide ANNEXURE-F dt.21.04.2025 and ANNEXURE-H dt.11.07.2025 respectively and accordingly handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the properties as per Partition Deed dated 06/07/2013 vide ANNEXURE-A in favour of the Petitioners, in terms of final order bearing No. MYSAC-MAG/SRCZ/47/2024 dated 21/10/2024 passed by the Respondent No.1 in vide ANNEXURE-B.

¶65

AND

¶66

iv. Pass such other necessary orders as deemed just and expedient in the circumstances of the case along with the costs of this Petition in the interest of justice and equity."

¶67

The parties are referred to as per their rank in

¶68

terms of W.P.No.19139/2025.

¶69

¶70

WP No. 19139 of 2025 C/W WP No. 24800 of 2025

¶71

The Petitioners are children of respondents No.3 and 4. The respondents are senior citizens. A Partition Deed dated 06.07.2013, registered as Document No.MYS1-2723/2013-14, was executed between the petitioners

¶72

and the respondents in respect of the properties mentioned in the schedule therein.

¶73

The respondents No.3 and 4 filed an application

¶74

under Section 25 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). However, the relief sought falls under Section 23(1) of the Act, before the second respondent, seeking withdrawal of the Partition Deed dated 06.07.2013. The second Respondent allowed the

¶75

Application by an order dated 21.10.2024.

¶76

Aggrieved by the second respondent's order, the

¶77

petitioners filed Appeal No. 320/2025 before the first

¶78

respondent. By an order dated 25.02.2025, the first respondent rejected the appeal.

¶79

¶80

WP No. 19139 of 2025 C/W WP No. 24800 of 2025

¶81

The Petitioners now challenge the orders passed

¶82

by the first and second respondents, and respondents No. 3 and 4 are before this Court, directing the first respondent to grant vacant possession of the properties mentioned in the partition and to consider the representations made to it.

¶83

Sri Bonny Karyappa, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the orders are illegal and unsustainable, that they exceed the scope of Section 23 of the Act, and that no provision allows cancellation of the registered Partition Deed.

¶84

Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 and 4 justifies the orders, and the non-consideration of the representations is detrimental to respondents No. 3 and 4. Sri Srinivas Kumar, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2, fairly submits that the issue is no longer res integra in view of this Court's judgments.

¶85

This Court, on 25.09.2025, in WP No.24800/2025, directed the petitioners to pay

¶86

¶87

WP No. 19139 of 2025 C/W WP No. 24800 of 2025

¶88

Rs.25,000/- to the parents-respondent No.3 and 4, with effect from 01.09.2024 . Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order has been duly complied with and that the petitioners are paying the amount. Learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 did not dispute the same. On query, the learned counsel for the petitioners asked whether the amount payable to the parents could be enhanced. He submitted that the amount payable could be enhanced. The learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 submitted that respondents No.3 and 4 do not want any litigation at this juncture, as respondent No.3 is aged 81 years and respondent No.4 is aged 74 years. If the maintenance amount is reasonably enhanced, they would be satisfied.

¶89

The questions that arise for consideration in the present matters are:

¶90

"i. Whether the proceedings under Section 23 of the Act, 2007, would be entertained in respect of the Partition Deed?

¶91

ii. Whether, in the present case, the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are proper and correct?

¶92

iii. What order should be passed?"

¶93

10 -

¶94

WP No. 19139 of 2025 C/W WP No. 24800 of 2025

¶95

Answer to Point No. 1 : " Whether the

¶96

proceedings under Section 23 of the Act, 2007, would be entertained in respect of the partition deed?"

¶97

12.1. This aspect is no longer res integra . A Coordinate Bench of this Court, in prior matters, have categorically come to the conclusion that the partition deed is not covered under Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of

¶98

the Act, 2007, and that such a partition deed cannot be questioned in proceedings under Section 23 of the Act, 2007.

¶99

12.2. Hence, I answer Point No.1 by holding that the challenge to the partition deed cannot be made under Section 23 of the Act, 2007.

¶100

Answer to Point No. 2 : " Whether, in the present case, the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are proper and correct?"

¶101

11 -

¶102

WP No. 19139 of 2025 C/W WP No. 24800 of 2025

¶103

13.1. Taking into consideration my answer to Point No. 1, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have no authority to exercise jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Act, 2007, in respect of the partition deed. Hence, I answer Point No. 2 in the negative .

¶104

Notwithstanding the above, the scheme of the Act, 2007, demonstrates that the intention of the legislature is to ensure that the parents and senior citizens are provided with food, clothing, residence, medical attendance, and treatment, among other things. Maintenance includes provisions for food, clothing, medical assistance, treatment, and residence.

¶105

Therefore, after careful consideration of the present facts and circumstances prevailing in this case, the maintenance amount currently being paid pursuant to the Order of this Court to respondents No. 3 and 4 remains inadequate and insufficient to meet their basic living requirements. Consequently, such amount requires to be

¶106

12 -

¶107

WP No. 19139 of 2025 C/W WP No. 24800 of 2025

¶108

enhanced in the interest of justice, particularly keeping in view the advanced age of respondents No. 3 and 4, their likely diminished capacity to earn a livelihood, and the

¶109

prevailing cost of living standards. Keeping in view the submission of the Learned Counsels and in order to ensure a dignified and secure existence for respondents No.3 and

¶110

4, the Petitioners are hereby directed to pay the sum of Rs.17,500/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand and Five Hundred only) each to Respondents No. 3 and 4, respectively, as enhanced maintenance, commencing from the month of September 2026 during their lifetime.

¶111

15.1. Hence, I pass the following:

¶112

ORDER

¶113

i. WP No. 19139/2025 is allowed.

¶114

ii. The order dated 25.02.2025 at Annexure-G

¶115

passed by the first Respondent and the order dated 21.10.2024 at Annexure-E passed by the second Respondent stand quashed;

¶116

13 -

¶117

WP No. 19139 of 2025 C/W WP No. 24800 of 2025

¶118

iii. However, the Petitioners are directed to pay Rs.17,500/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand and Five Hundred only) each to Respondents No. 3

¶119

and 4, commencing from the month of September 2026 , during their lifetime.

¶120

iv. WP No.24800/2025 is dismissed .

¶121

Sd/(B.PRAMOD) JUDGE

¶122

Bsv/MKM

Sri M Swamy v. the President

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M Swamy v. the President

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