Disposed

Smt Puttamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Jun 2026WP/7297/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Senior citizen sought enforcement of an interim maintenance order against her sons. Respondent No.5 deposited Rs.2 lakh in arrears with penalty; petitioner permitted to withdraw it; respondent undertook not to obstruct her possession of the suit property. Proceedings before the Assistant Commissioned to be concluded within six months. Petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to withdraw Rs.2 lakh deposited by Respondent No.5; undertaking not to obstruct her possession; Assistant Commissioner to conclude proceedings within six months.

Smt Puttamma Vs State of Karnataka — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:29817 WP No. 7297 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 7297 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. PUTTAMMA, W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA K.J., AGED 67 YEARS, R/O KADABAHALLI VILLAGE, BINDIGANAVILE HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 448.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SHIVARAMU H C., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

ASSISTANT COMISSIONER, PANDAVAPURA SUB-DIVISION, PANDAVAPURA, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 434.

¶16

TAHASILDAR, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, PANDAVAPURA,

¶17

MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 434.

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:29817 WP No. 7297 of 2022

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

SUB - INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BINDIGANAVILE POLICE STATION, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 448.

¶21

MANJUNATHA, S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA K.J., AGED 47 YEARS, R/O KADABAHALLI VILLAGE, BINDIGANAVILE HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 448.

¶22

DHANYAKUMAR K.,

¶23

S/O KRISHNAPPA K.J., AGED 41 YEARS, R/O KADABAHALLI VILLAGE, BINDIGANAVILE HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 448.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI.SRINIVAS KUMAR M., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4; SRI.RAVINDRANATH K., ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI.MAHESH R UPPIN, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶26

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TO EXECUTE THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 22.2.2022 PASSED BY HIM IN CASE MARKED AS ANNEXURE-G AS PER SECTION 5(8) OF THE MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT, 2007 AND ETC.,

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:29817 WP No. 7297 of 2022

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

Petitioner has instituted the proceedings under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 before the 2^nd respondent complaining negligence at the hands of her sons who are Respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein. By an interim order dated 22.02.2021, the 2^nd Respondent -Assistant Commissioner has directed Respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein to allow the petitioner to reside in the house situated in Sy.No.5/5P3 and has also directed them to pay Rs.3,000/- each per month towards her maintenance.

¶34

Complaining non-implementation of the said interim order the petitioner is before this court seeking following reliefs:

¶35

(i) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Assistant Commissioner to execute the interim order dated 22.02.2022 passed by him in Case No.MSC/CR/ »£Á¥ÉÆÃ /19/2020-21 marked as Annexure-G as per Section 5(8) of the Maintenance

¶36

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:29817 WP No. 7297 of 2022

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007;

¶40

(ii) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Sub-inspector of Police to take steps to restore the possession of the house in which she was living and to register a case under Section 25 for the offence punishable under Section 24 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007;

¶41

(iii) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents 1 to 4 to restore the possession of the agricultural lands bearing Sy.No.5/5P3 measuring 1 Acre 12 Guntas and Sy.No.5/8 measuring 2 Acre 8 Guntas situated at Kadabahalli, Bendiganavile Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk in favour of the petitioner; and

¶42

(iv) Pass such other orders as deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice."

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second relief in the petition may not survive for consideration inasmuch as the petitioner has been put in possession of the house as directed.

¶44

As regards the first relief, this Court by order dated 23.09.2022 had passed the following order:

¶45

"It has been submitted at the Bar that the petitioner is residing in one tenement and the 5^th respondent in another in the same building. Both, they are directed not to disturb each other.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:29817 WP No. 7297 of 2022

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

In the meanwhile the 5^th respondent is directed to remit all arrears of maintenance to the petitioner as directed in the impugned order on or before the next date of hearing, failing which he may be asked to pay Rs.50,000/- more by way of penalty.

¶50

The Manager, Mandya District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., and the Manager, State Bank of India, Kadabahalli village, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District are directed to furnish in a sealed covers the Bank account details for the preceeding 24 months of the petitioner Smt.Puttamma, widow of late Krishne Gowda of Kadabahalli village, Nagamangala Taluk immediately. The Savings Bank Account number of SBI is No.64136627260 and that of District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., is No.8040121001742.

¶51

Petitioner is directed to state on oath the bank account numbers and the balance therein for the preceding 24 months. Non-furnishing of this information shall result in drawing of adverse inference.

¶52

The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order by Speed Post to both the Bank Managers as above.

¶53

Call this matter for further hearing on 11.10.2022."

¶54

Learned counsel for Respondent No.5 submits that

¶55

in furtherance to the aforesaid order a sum of Rs.2 lakh by way

¶56

of demand draft bearing No.921327 dated 05.12.2025 has been deposited before this court vide memo dated 08.12.2025.

¶57

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:29817 WP No. 7297 of 2022

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

He further submits that though Respondent No.5 paid the arrears of maintenance amount within the time stipulated by this Court he has issued the Demand Draft for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs which includes penalty of Rs.50,000/- as directed by this court by order dated 23.11.2022 as abundant caution and that he would file a memo of calculation with dates of payment.

¶60

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that permission may be granted to the petitioner to withdraw amount of Rs.2 lakhs deposited in the court. Submission is placed on record. Petitioner is permitted to withdraw the said amount. Office is directed to release the said amount in the name of the petitioner.

¶61

As regards payment from Respondent No.6 is concerned, it is submitted that Respondent No.6 has been regular and prompt in paying the monthly maintenance.

¶62

The aforesaid event satisfy prayer Nos.(i) and (ii) of the petition.

¶63

As regards prayer No.(iii) is concerned, learned counsel submitted that there is a pending suit for partition

¶64

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:29817 WP No. 7297 of 2022

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

between the parties in O.S.No.71/2020 on the file of Civil Judge & JMFC, Nagamangala. The counsel for Respondent No.5 submits that without prejudice to the rights of the parties in the pending suit he would not obstruct or cause impediment in petitioner having access, possession and enjoyment of the said property subject to outcome of the suit. The said submission is placed on record.

¶67

In that view of the matter, nothing survives for consideration in this petition. However, since the proceedings before the 2^nd Respondent is still pending consideration, the 2^nd Respondent shall proceed and dispose of the same in accordance with law within an outer limit of six months after affording opportunity to the parties.

¶68

It is made clear that the parties shall file memo of calculation of maintenance amount as per interim order dated 22.02.2021 before the 2^nd Respondent and the 2^nd Respondent shall ensure that Respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein who are Respondent Nos.1 and 2 there shall comply with the interim order and if there is any default, negligence or dereliction, strict

¶69

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:29817 WP No. 7297 of 2022

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

action in accordance with law shall be ensured as contemplated under the Act.

¶72

It is further made clear that though this court by order dated 23.09.2022 had directed Respondent No.5 to remit all the arrears of maintenance amount as directed by the 2^nd Respondent, this court had further directed that failure on the part of Respondent No.5 to pay the arrears would make him liable to pay Rs.50,000/- by way of penalty.

¶73

The matter was thereafter posted on 11.10.2022. In other words, Respondent No.5 was required to pay maintenance amount in terms of order passed by 2^nd Respondent and clear all the arrears, if any, as it stood on or before 11.10.2022. If Respondent No.5 furnishes proof of payment of maintenance including arrears to be cleared as on 11.10.2022, then the question of payment of penalty of Rs.50,000/- would not arise. If on the other hand, maintenance and arrears was not paid as directed by this court on or before 11.10.2022, Respondent No.5 would be liable to pay Rs.50,000/towards penalty shall be taken into

¶74

¶75

NC: 2026:KHC:29817 WP No. 7297 of 2022

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

consideration while calculating the amount of Rs.2 lakhs already paid by Respondent No.5 by way of demand draft.

¶78

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶79

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

¶80

SNB

¶81

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Smt Puttamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Puttamma v. State of Karnataka

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

M/S Crescent Earth Movers and Constructions and Vs the Authorized Officer

Sri Krishna Tantri Vs Rajya Dharmika Parishat

Pankaj L. Kothari Vs the Reserve Bank of India

Smt Kamala Vs the District Caste Verification Committee

Ittina Properties Private Vs Executive Engineer

Sri C Narayana Swamy Vs the State of Karnataka