Sri H M Vasanthakumar Vs the State of Karnataka

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE SUB DIVISION-11, ABAKARI BHAVAN NO.334/6, KSBCL COMPLEX, OPP BYATARAYANAPURA POLICE STATION MYSORE ROAD BENGALURU-56026.

¶23

SMT LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE MAYANNA GOWDA AGED 65 YEARS

¶24

SRI RAGHAVENDRA S/O LATE MAYANNA GOWDA AGED 40 YEARS

¶25

RESPONDENTS 5 & 6 ARE RESIDENTS OF HONNENAHALLI BELLUR HOBLI, NAGAMANGALAL TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 418.

¶26

SMT NAGARATHNA W/O MANJEGOWDA D/O LATE MAYANNAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT VALAGEAHALLI VILLAGE TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572227.

¶27

SMT MANJULA W/O KRISHNE GOWDA AGED 50 YEARS,

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:1718 WP No. 547 of 2024

¶29

3 -

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

R/AT NO.23, 5TH CROSS, 6^TH PHASE, J P NAGAR, KOTHANUR DINNE R B I LAYOUT BENGALURU-560078.

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI., AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. VYSHAK MANIKANTA S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. N. SHIVAKUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R8)

¶34

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 01/04/2021 PASSED IN CASE NO. MSC/CR/SR.CIT.WEL/10/2021, ON THE FILE OF ASST. COMMISSIONER, PANDAVAPURA SUB-DIVISION, PANDAVAPURA, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND THE ORDER DATED 13/10/2023 IN CASE NO. MSC(2)02/22-23 ON THE FILE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA VIDE ANNEXURE-B, BY WAY OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI.

¶35

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

¶36

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:1718 WP No. 547 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

ORAL ORDER

¶41

The petitioner [the fifth respondent's son] is aggrieved by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner's order's dated 01.04.2021 [the third respondent] under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 [for short, 'the Act' ]. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner [for short, 'the Tribunal' ], while considering the fifth respondent's application under Section 4 of the Act, has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- for her maintenance and the petitioner is unsuccessful in his appeal as against the Assistant Commissioner's order. The impugned order in the aforesaid appeal is dated 13.10.2023 [Annexure-B] .

¶42

Sri. M. B. Chandrachood, the learned

¶43

counsel for the petitioner, submits that the question for consideration would be whether the petitioner, who is rendered paraplegic, must be saddled with the responsibility of paying the fifth respondent a sum of

¶44

5 -

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:1718 WP No. 547 of 2024

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Rs.5,000/- every month. In elaboration, the learned counsel submits as follows.

¶48

[a] The petitioner's father died while in harness.

¶49

[b] The petitioner, who was then hale and healthy, is admitted to employment with the Department of Excise, Government of Karnataka on compassionate grounds and the fifth respondent [the mother] is admitted to family pension. The fifth respondent owns 5 acres in Sy.No.188/2A of Honnenahalli, Nagamangala District and the petitioner's younger brother is cultivating this land which is also recorded by the Assistant Commissioner.

¶50

When queried, Sri M.B.Chandrachooda

¶51

submits that because the petitioner is rendered paraplegic and confined to bed, he has lost his employment. As against these submissions, Sri.Vysyak Manikanta S., the learned counsel for the

¶52

6 -

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:1718 WP No. 547 of 2024

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

fifth to eighth respondents, submits that his instructions are that the petitioner continues to be employed and that the assertion that he is rendered paraplegic is a ruse, and the learned counsel submits that it is for the first time before this Court this contention is being taken.

¶56

These rival submissions are considered, and Ms.Saritha Kulkarni, the learned Additional Government Advocate is heard. This Court opines that material circumstances must be considered. These material circumstances are such as that the fifth respondent owns 5 acres of land in Sy.No.188/2A of Honnenahalli, Nagamangala District which is cultivated by her younger son [the sixth respondent], an aspect that the Assistant Commissioner has alluded to in the impugned orders but without assessing the import of the same. Further, the petitioner's case is that the fifth respondent is admitted to family pension and that in

¶57

7 -

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:1718 WP No. 547 of 2024

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

addition to the family pension she draws certain allowance admissible to a widow under the Central Government's policy; and that the fifth respondent is financially well provided for.

¶61

This Court opines that the Assistant Commissioner should have considered these

¶62

circumstances in all its import before calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month in the premise that he works with the Excise Department, but the officer has not. If the petitioner is indeed rendered paraplegic and has lost employment, the direction to pay per month Rs.10,000/- would also put him with hardship. There must be due consideration of all these aspects to decide on whether the fifth respondent must indeed be admitted to any maintenance.

¶63

The assertion that the petitioner is rendered paraplegic and confined to bed with loss of employment is under contest. In view of all these

¶64

8 -

¶65

NC: 2026:KHC:1718 WP No. 547 of 2024

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

circumstances, this Court is of the view that the interference by this Court must be to set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order to restore the proceedings for due consideration with the Assistant Commissioner calling for a report from the jurisdictional Tahsildar on a visit to the petitioner's place of residence. In view of the afore, the following:

¶68

ORDER

¶69

[A] The petition is allowed-in-part and the Assistant Commissioner's impugned order dated 01.04.2021 [Annexure-A] is quashed restoring the proceedings for reconsideration. The petitioner, duly represented by his next friend/guardian, shall appear without further notice on 09.02.2026 and so shall the fifth and sixth respondents.

¶70

[B] The Assistant Commissioner shall call for a report from the jurisdictional Tahsildar on the

¶71

9 -

¶72

NC: 2026:KHC:1718 WP No. 547 of 2024

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

petitioner's condition and the jurisdictional Tahsildar shall file a report on visiting the property and collecting the details under a properly drawn mahazar.

¶75

[C] It is needless to observe that it would be open to both the petitioner and the fifth and sixth respondents to file their respective pleadings in the light of the report that is filed by the Tahsildar. The second respondent shall expedite a decision and in any event before 31.03.2026 .

¶76

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶77

SA ct:sr

Sri H M Vasanthakumar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri H M Vasanthakumar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple Trust (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S.Psg Construction Vs the State of Karnataka

The Branch Manager Vs Srinivas D

Eunice Ruth Kribanithi D Vs Union of India

The Divisional Manager, Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Limited Vs C.R. Thimmanna @ Tamalihalli Thimmanna

John Tharian Thaliath Vs National Highways Authority of India