Sri C Kiritappa Vs Smt S Pilomina — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Sri C Kiritappa Vs Smt S Pilomina — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Partition/division direction in the impugned order (1 acre 30 guntas with house to respondent No.1) held unsustainable as beyond the authorities' powers, with the parties' property rights kept open to be urged in pending suit O.S.No.863/2023; maintenance directions sustained — respondent No.1 to receive Rs.2,000/- per month each from petitioner No.2 and respondent No.5 (petitioner No.2's payments running from the Deputy Commissioner's order date, arrears if any in two installments within two months) and Rs.5,000/- per month from petitioner No.1 from the date of this order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner had any authority or jurisdiction under the Act, 2007 to pass orders directing partition/division of the property among family members. +1 more

Court's answer

The orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner for partition of the property admittedly belonging to petitioner No.1 are unsustainable, the same being not traceable to any provision of the Act, 2007 or any other law.

Ratio / Principle

Neither respondent No.2 nor respondent No.3 could have passed an order of partition, such an order being within the domain of the competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction.

Key takeaways

A suit in O.S.No.863/2023 for partition is pending consideration; parties are at liberty to seek such remedy as may be available under law.obiter¶55
All the rights of the parties, if any, to the property are kept open to be urged in the pending suit.obiter¶57
The order directing petitioner No.2 as well as respondent No.5 to pay Rs.2,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent No.1 does not require any interference.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WP No. 27421 of 2023 (GM-RES) [NC: 2026:KHC:3504], High Court of Karnataka, M.G.S. Kamal J., order dated 21.01.2026: Authorities under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (the Assistant Commissioner, and the Deputy Commissioner as appellate authority under Section 16) cannot direct partition/division of property — such orders are 'not traceable to any of the provisions of the Act, 2007 or any other law', partition lying within the domain of the competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction. The Deputy Commissioner's order dated 17/10/2023 (No.MAG.HI.NA.RA./288/2022-23) allotting 1 acre 30 guntas with the house thereon to respondent No.1 was therefore unsustainable on that score. Maintenance directions upheld: sons (petitioner No.2 Vasuraju and respondent No.5 Vinsent David Kumar) to pay Rs.2,000/- per month each to respondent No.1; petitioner No.1 (husband) C Kiritappa's undertaking of Rs.5,000/- per month recorded and operative from the date of the order; petitioner No.2's arrears, if any, payable in two installments within two months. All property rights kept open to be urged in pending suit O.S.No.863/2023. Petition disposed of.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:3504 WP No. 27421 of 2023

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

WRIT PETITION NO. 27421 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI C KIRITAPPA

S/O LATE SRI CHOWRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,

R/AT ALPHONSEANAGAR VILLAGE, DANNDIGANAHALLI HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT -573116

SRI VASURAJU

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

S/O SRI C KIRITAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO 10, ANTHONY ANNAMMA NILAYA, C LAYOUT, BASAVANAPURA, BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU -560083

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. VENKATESH R BHAGAT, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT S PILOMINA

C/O SRI C KIRITAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT ALPHONSEANAGAR VILLAGE, DANNDIGANAHALLI HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT- 573116

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:3504 WP No. 27421 of 2023

HC-KAR

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT- 573201 HASSAN AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZEN ACT, 2007

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HASSAN SUB DIVISION, HASSAN DISTRICT -573201 AND AUTHORITY UNDER MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZEN ACT, 2007

THE TAHSILDAR

CHANNARAYAPATNA -573116 HASSAN DISTRICT

SRI VINSENT DAVID KUMAR C/O SRI C KIRITAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT ALPHONSEANAGAR VILLAGE, DANNDIGANAHALLI HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT- 573116

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SHIVARAMU H C., ADVOCATE FOR R1, SMT.B.SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R2 TO R4 SRI.MADHU J.N., ADVOCATE FOR R5)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a)CALL FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17/10/2023 PASSED BY THE R2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN AT NO.MAG.HI.NA.RA./288/2022-23 PURPORTING TO BE ACTING UNDER SECTION 9(2) OF THE MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT, 2007 AT ANNEXURE-A AND b) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17/10/2023 AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE R2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN AT

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:3504 WP No. 27421 of 2023

HC-KAR

NO.MAG.HI.NA.RA./288/2022-23 DIRECTING TO HAND OVER THE POSSESSION OF 01 ACRE 20 GUNTAS OF LAND IN FAVOUR OF THE R1 AND ALSO DIRECTING PETITIONER NO. 2 TO PAY A SUM OF Rs.2,000/- (RUPEES TWO THOUSAND ONLY) TOWARDS MAINTENANCE PURPORTING TO BE ACTING UNDER SECTION 9(2) OF THE MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT, 2007.

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

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

ORAL ORDER

Petitioner No.1 is the husband of respondent No.1 and petitioner No.2 and respondent No.5 are the children of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1.

Petitioner No.1 had filed a petition before the Assistant Commissioner, Hassan seeking mutation of revenue entries in respect of land measuring 4 acres forming part of Survey No.46 in the joint names of his sons, his wife and himself. Pursuant to which, Assistant Commissioner in purported exercise of his power under the provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 (for short `Act, 2007) by order dated 26.08.2022 has directed to enter the name of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1 jointly in the

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:3504 WP No. 27421 of 2023

HC-KAR

revenue records. Being aggrieved, respondent No.1 has preferred an appeal under Section 16 of the said Act, 2007 seeking cancellation of the order for joint revenue entry and has further sought for division of the property and allotment of 1 acre 30 guntas in her favour. The Deputy Commissioner by impugned order has allowed the said appeal directing division of the property, allotting 1 acre 30 guntas together with house existing thereon in favour of respondent No.1 and has further directed the sons namely petitioner No.2 and respondent No.5 to pay Rs.2,000/- each to her towards her maintenance. Being aggrieved by the same petitioners are before this Court.

Learned counsel for petitioners at the outset submit

both respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner and respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner have grossly erred in passing the impugned order without having any authority or jurisdiction in purported exercise of power under the Act, 2007. He submits dispute is essentially between the husband and wife. Even if it is so, neither can these two authorities direct for partition of property nor can direct for providing maintenance by the husband to the wife. Order being one without jurisdiction, he insists the same to be quashed. However, he fairly submits that

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:3504 WP No. 27421 of 2023

HC-KAR

petitioner No.1 is willing to pay Rs.5,000/towards maintenance. This is in addition to the direction given by the Deputy Commissioner to petitioner No.2 and respondent No.5 to pay Rs.2,000/- each to respondent No.1.

In response, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 fairly submits the order passed for partition cannot be sustained and however, in the light of submission made by learned counsel for petitioners that petitioner No.1 is willing to pay Rs.5,000/- towards maintenance, he submitted the same be recorded and made as an order of the Court.

Heard and perused the records.

The order passed by Assistant Commissioner as well

as Deputy Commissioner as noted above for partition of the property which admittedly belonged to petitioner No.1 is unsustainable as the same is not traceable to any of the provisions of the Act, 2007 or any other law under which the respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 could have passed such an order which is within the domain of the competent Court of the Civil Jurisdiction to the extent of partition of property.

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:3504 WP No. 27421 of 2023

HC-KAR

It is submitted that a suit in O.S.No.863/2023 for partition is pending consideration. Parties are at liberty to seek such remedy as may be available under law.

As regards the order directing petitioner No.2 as well as respondent No.5 to pay Rs.2,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent No.1, same does not require any interference. Since petitioner No.1 has agreed and undertaken to pay Rs.5,000/- per month, he shall pay and continue to pay the said amount on and from the date of this order. It is further made clear, petitioner No.2 shall pay and continue to pay the amount of Rs.2,000/- from the date of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and arrears if any shall be paid in two installments within an outer limit of two months from today.

All the rights of the parties, if any, to the property is kept open to be urged in the pending suit.

Petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40