Karnataka High Court
Srinath And Anr vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 20 July, 2026
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-K:5450
WP No. 201848 of 2024
CNR: KAHC030040252024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 201848 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI SRINATH
S/O MAREPPA KATTIMANI,
AGE. 67 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
2. SRI VISHWANATH
S/O MAREPPA KATTIMANI,
AGE: 66 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
BOTH ARE R/O H.NO. 1-6-157/11,
AMARRESHWAR COLONY,
Digitally signed
by SWETA
ASHAPUR ROAD,
KULKARNI
Location: HIGH RAICHUR-586102.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. LH SHIVAREDDY &
SRI SANGOLI NAGANNA.,ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
-2-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-K:5450
WP No. 201848 of 2024
CNR: KAHC030040252024
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
RAICHUR-584102.
3. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER,
RAICHUR-584102.
4. THE PROJECT COORDINATOR,
SR. CITIZEN'S HELPLINE CENTER,
POLICE HQ,
RAICHUR-586102.
5. SRI MAREPPA KATTIMANI @ MARKAPPA,
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGE: 78 YEARS,
OCC: RETIRED AEE,
PWD DEPARTMENT,
RAICHUR
6. SMT. GOURABAI
W/O MAREPPA KATTIMANI,
AGE: 67 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
BOTH ARE R/O H.NO. 1-4-157/11,
AMARESHWAR COLONY,
ASHAPUR ROAD,
RAICHUR-584 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4
SRI SHIVANAND PATIL &
SRI VARUN PATIL., ADVOCATES FOR R5 & R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
A) SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY R2 ON 20.02.2024
ORDER NO. REVISION PETITION 91/2023 DIRECTING THE
PETITIONERS (RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2) SHALL PAY
MAINTENANCE OF Rs.10000.00 P M TO APPELLANTS NO.1
AND 2 EACH TILL THEIR LIFE TIME AT ANNEXURE-K, B)
ISSUE ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTIONS AS DEEMED FIT
-3-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-K:5450
WP No. 201848 of 2024
CNR: KAHC030040252024
BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT UNDER THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, the petitioners seek the following
reliefs:
“a) Set aside the order passed by R2 on 20.02.2024
Order no: Revision Petition No.91/2023 directing the
Petitioners (Respondents 1 & 2) shall pay maintenance
of Rs.10,000/- pm to Appellants No.1 & 2 each till their
life time at Annexure-K.
b) Issue any other order OR directions as deemed
fit by this Hon’ble Court under the facts and
circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and
equity.”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned Additional Government Advocate for the
respondents No.1 to 4 and Sri. Shivanand Patil & Varun
-4-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-K:5450
WP No. 201848 of 2024
CNR: KAHC030040252024
Patil, learned counsels for the respondents No.5 and 6 and
perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate
that the petitioners are the children of respondent No.5
from his first wife-Narasubai, while the respondent No.6 is
the second wife of the respondent No.5. The respondent
No.5 instituted proceedings under the Maintenance and
Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 seeking
various reliefs against the petitioners including payment of
maintenance from the petitioners under the said Act of
2007. The said proceedings having been contested by the
petitioners herein by filing statement of objections, the
Assistant Commissioner/ Original Authority passed an
order dated 03.10.2023 dismissing the petition filed by the
respondents No.6 and 7. Aggrieved by the said order
passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the respondents
No.6 and 7 filed an appeal before the Deputy
Commissioner under Section 16 of the said Act of 2007,
which came to be allowed by the Appellate Authority/
-5-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-K:5450
WP No. 201848 of 2024
CNR: KAHC030040252024
Tribunal vide final order dated 20.02.2024 allowing the
appeal and directing the petitioners to pay maintenance in
a sum of Rs.10,000/- each to the respondents No.5 & 6
during their lifetime. Aggrieved by the impugned order
passed by the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioners are
before this Court by way of the present petition.
4. A perusal of the material on record including
the impugned order will clearly indicate that the Appellate
Authority has allowed the appeal by passing the impugned
cryptic, laconic, non speaking and unreasoned order
without considering the parameters/ ingredients contained
in Section 4 of the said Act of 2007 and without
appreciating that the respondent No.5 was a retired
Assistant Executive Engineer of PWD and nor has the
Appellate Authority considered the various contentions
urged by the petitioners thereby, resulting in erroneous
conclusion. In other words, while allowing the appeal filed
by the respondents No.5 and 6, the Appellate Authority
held as under:
-6-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-K:5450
WP No. 201848 of 2024
CNR: KAHC030040252024
"Preamble:
This Appeal is preferred by one Sri. Mareppa
Kattimani@ Marakappa S/o Late. Hanumantappa
and his wife Smt.Gourabai W/o Mareppa
Kattimani, both are Residing in House No.1-4-
157/11 Amarewara Colony, Ashapur Road,
Raichur, under Section 16 of the Maintenance and
Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act. 2007,
by challenging the orders of the Maintenance
Tribunal, Raichur Dt.3-10-2023 in file
No.SUM/CUM/03/2023-24.
Brief facts of the Appeal are that.
Respondents are the sons of Appellants i.e. Sons
of his first wife, Appellant No.1 has purchased the
open plot bearing Municipal No.1-4-157/11 in
Amareshwara Colony, Raichur in the year 1994-95,
in the name of Respondent No.2 at the time of his
minority, later on he built the house from his own
earnings. He bequeathed the said house in the
names of children born to him from his 2nd wife.
Respondents 1 and 2, who are the sons of his 1st
wife are not at all taking care of their health, not
providing maintenance like financial Assistance,
Medical assistance and physical needs, etc.
Maintenance Tribunal, Raichur, has rejected their
Petition on assumption, presumption and on
whimsical grounds, hence this Appeal is filed to
set-aside the order of Maintenance Tribunal Dt.
03.10.2023.
-7-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-K:5450
WP No. 201848 of 2024
CNR: KAHC030040252024
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared in this Appeal
and submitted their joint objections. They totally
denied the allegations made by the Appellants,
they have sufficient income from the properties
situated in Hyderabad, they also having sufficient
earnings, hence both of them have prayed for
dismissal of the Appeal among other grounds.
Lower Court records Summoned, heard from both
sides, perused the Records, and also perused the
order passed by the Tribunal Dt. 03-10-2023.
In the instant case, it is undisputed fact that,
Respondents 1 and 2 are the Sons of 1st wife of
Appellant No.1, It is also un-disputed fact that
Appellant No.2 is the 2nd wife of Appellant No. 1.
As regards to the house which is under the will to
Respondent No.2, Appellant No.1 is at liberty to
cancel the will at any time during his life time, as
such, the Appellate Tribunal cannot assist
Appellants in that regard.
It appears from the contentions of the Appellants
that they have no grievances against the sons of
2nd wife, who are living with Appellants. However,
these Respondents are also Duty Bound to take
regarding care of Appellants their food, clothing’,
residence, physical needs, medical Assistance,
mental peace and other needs of them. Appellant
No.1 is receiving monthly Pension amount of
Rs.45000/- is appears to be not sufficient to meet
out all expenses of necessity both Appellants as
stated above.
-8-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-K:5450
WP No. 201848 of 2024
CNR: KAHC030040252024
Maintenance Tribunal over looked all facts and
circumstances stated above, simply it rejected the
Petitions of these Appellants. In support of my
conclusion, I relied on the following judgments as
guide lines
Maintenance and welfare of parents and
Senior Citizens Act. 2007,
The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, in decided
case of Nanjappa Vs. State of Karnataka and
others, in W.A.P No.573 (GM-RES) Dated 17th Day
of March 2023.
The main observations made in its Judgment by
the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court by following the
principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
in a case Sudesh Chikara vs Ramati Devi,
reported in LAWS (SC)-2022-12-17. PARA
No.12, 13 and 14. the Hon’ble high Court of
Karnataka important observations understand
correct legal position of relevant provisions of the
said Act in resolving the present Dispute between
the parties of this case,
Para No.17
At this stage, it is relevant to considered the
provisions of Section 23 of Maintenance and
welfare of parents and Senior Citizens Act. 2007,
(1) Where any Senior Citizen who, after the
commencement of this Act, has transferred by way
of Gift or otherwise, his property, subject to the
condition that the transferee shall provide the
basic amenities and basic physical needs to the
-9-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-K:5450
WP No. 201848 of 2024
CNR: KAHC030040252024
transferor and such Transferee refuses to or fails
to provide such ammonites and physical needs, the
said transfer of property shall be deemed to have
been made by fraud or coercion or under undue
influence and shall at the option of the Transferor
be declared void by the Tribunal.
(2). Where any senior citizen has a right to
receive maintenance out of the estate and such
estate or part thereof is Transferred, the right to
receive maintenance may be enforced against the
Transferee for Consideration and with out notice of
right.
(3). If, any Senior Citizen is incapable of OF
enforcing the rights under Sub-Section(1)and (2)
action may be taken on his behalf by any of the
organization referred to in Explanation to sub-
Section (1) of section 5.
Para No.18.
On careful reading of the aforesaid provisions
makes it clear that all kinds of Transfers as is clear
from the use of the
Expression ‘by way of Gift Or otherwise’ so as
to attract the provisions of Sub-Section (1) of
Section 23 of the A, the following two conditions
must be fulfilled.
a) The transfer must have been made
subject to the condition that the transferee
shall provide the basic amenities and basic
physical needs to the transferor. And,
– 10 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-K:5450
WP No. 201848 of 2024
CNR: KAHC030040252024
b) The transferee refuses or fails to provide
such amenities and physical needs to the
transferor.
19. If both the aforesaid conditions are
satisfied, by a legal fiction, transfer shall be
deemed to have been made by fraud or
coercion or undue influence. Such a transfer
then becomes voidable at the instance of the
transfer and the Maintenance Tribunal gets
Jurisdiction to declare the Transfer as void.
20. Though a specific contention is urged
by the learned Senior Counsel for the
Appellant in view of the scope and object
of Senior Citizen Act, it is deemed that the
transferee shall provide the basic amenities
and basic physical needs to the transferor
and such transferee refuses or fails to
provide such amenities and physical needs,
the said transfer of property by him would
be null and void, it is undisputed fact that
when a senior citizen parts with his or her
property be executing a gift or a release or
otherwise in favour of his or her near and
dear ones, a condition of looking after the
senior citizen is not be necessarily attached
to it. On the contrary. very often, such
transfers are made out of love and
affection without any expectation in turn.
Therefore, when it is alleged that the
condition mentioned in sub section (1) of
section 23 of Senior Citizens Act are
attached to transfer, existence of such
conditions must be established before the
Tribunal.
– 11 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-K:5450
WP No. 201848 of 2024
CNR: KAHC030040252024
21. In the present case, on careful perusal
of the document executed by the appellant
in favour of 3rd respondent who happens to
be the brother of appellant, it does not
contain any stipulation that the 3rd
respondent is under the obligation to
maintain the present appellant. In the
absence of the same and in view of the
provisions of Sub Section (1) and (2) of
Section 23 of the Senior Citizen Act, the
transaction could be declared as null and
void provided the same contains the
stipulation that the transferee shall
maintain the Senior Citizen and the
aforesaid Gift Deed does not contain any
such stipulation. In absence any
conditions (1) and (2) of section 23 of the
Senior Citizen Act are not attracted.
22. Out view is fortified by the Dictum of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case,
Sudesh Chikkara Vs. RAMATI devi,
reported in LAWS (SC) 2022-12-17,
Wherein at paragraph 12, 13 and 14 it is
held as under,
Para No.12,
a) The transfer must have been made
subject to the condition that the transferee
shall provide the basic amenities and basic
physical needs to the transferor and
b) the transferee refuses or fails to
provide such amenities and physical needs
to the transferor
– 12 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-K:5450
WP No. 201848 of 2024
CNR: KAHC030040252024
If both the aforesaid conditions are
satisfied by a legal fiction, the transfer
shall be deemed to have made by fraud or
coercion or undue-influence. Such a
transfer such a transfer then becomes
viodable at the instances of the transferor
and the Maintenance Tribunal gets
Jurisdiction to declare the Transfer as void.
13. when Senior Citizen parts with his or
her property by executing a gift or a
release or otherwise in favour of his / her
near and dear ones, a condition of looking
after the senior citizen is not necessarily
attached to it. On the contrary, very often.
Such transfers are made out of love and
affection without any expectation in return.
Therefore, when it is alleged that the
conditions mentioned in Sub-Section (1) of
Section 23 are attached to a transfer,
existence of such conditions must be
established before Tribunal.
14. Careful perusal of the petition under
Section 23 filed by Respondent No.1 shows
that it is not even pleaded that the release
Deed was executed subject to a condition
that the transferees (daughters of
respondent No.1) would provide basic
amenities and basic physical Needs to
Respondent No.1. Even in the impugned
order dated 22nd May 2018 passed by the
Maintenance Tribunal, no such finding has
been recorded. It seems that oral
Evidence not adduced by the parties. As
can be seen from the impugned Judgment
– 13 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-K:5450
WP No. 201848 of 2024
CNR: KAHC030040252024
of the Tribunal, immediately after a reply
was filed by the appellant that petition was
fixed for arguments. Effecting transfer
subject to a condition of providing the
basic amenities and basic Physical needs to
the transferor- Senior Citizen is sine quo
non applicability of Sub-Section (1) of
Section 23. In the present case. As stated
earlier, it is not even pleaded by the
Respondent No.1 that release deed was
executed subject to such condition.
23. Though in the present Case, a specific
contention is being taken by the learned
Senior Counsel for the Appellant that, the
appellant being the absolute owner of the
property in question, out of love and
affection executed Gift in favour of his
brother/Respondent No.3 under Gift Deed,
dated 23-2-2012, with a hope that 3rd
Respondent/ brother would take care of
basic needs of medical necessities as his
son was not keeping well and his daughter
was settled with her husband, but
Respondent No.33 has attitude towards
him and has failed to show even love and
affection to him. The fact remains that on
the application filed by the appellant
against Respondent No.3, The Assistant
commissioner, who is the authority under
the provisions of Sub- Section (1) and (2)
of Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act has
allowed the Application filed by the present
appellant ignoring the conditions stipulated
under the provisions of Sub- Section (1)
and (2) of the Senior Citizens Act as held
– 14 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-K:5450
WP No. 201848 of 2024
CNR: KAHC030040252024
by the Hon’ble Court Supreme Court.
Thereby, the learned Single Judge has
rightly allowed the Writ Petition. In the
identical circumstances, the Full Bench of
the Kerala High Court in the case of
Subhasinin Vs. District Collector. Kozilikod,
Reported in AWS (KER)-2020-9-81 at
paragraph 52 has held as under.
52. We conclude by answering the
reference, that the condition as required
under Section 23 (1) for the provision of
basic amenities and basic physical needs to
a senior citizen has to be expressly stated
in the document of Transfer, which
Transfer can only be one by way of gift or
which partakes the character of the gift or
a similar gratuitous transfer. It is the
Jurisdictional fact, which the Tribunal will
have to look in to before invoking Section
23 (1) and proceedings on a summary. We
answer the reference agreeing with the
decision in W.A.No. 2012 of 2012 dated
28-11-2012 [Malukrty ponnarssery Vs.
P.Rajan Ponnarassery]. We find
Shabeen Martin Vs. Muriel [2016 (5)
KHC 603] and Sundhari Vs. Revisional
Divisional Officer [2018 khc 4655 We
approve Radhamani Vs. State of Kerala
[2016(1) KHC-9) which had recital in the
document akin to that required under
Section 23(1).
24. On careful reading of the contentions
of the Gift Deed, dated 23-2-2012 the
impugned order passed by the learned
– 15 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-K:5450
WP No. 201848 of 2024
CNR: KAHC030040252024
single Judge of this Court is in consonance
with the provisions of Sub- Sections (1)
and (2) of Section 23 of the Maintenance
and welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens
Act, 2007 as the Gift Deed dated 23-2-
2011 does not contain any stipulation that
Respondent No.3 is under obligation to
maintain the present of the Appellant. In
the absence of passed by the learned
Single Judge is not on consonance with the
provisions of Section 23 of the Senior
Citizen Act.
25. Though our conscious is in favour of
the welfare of the Senior Citizens
considering the scope and object of the
Maintenance and welfare of parents and
Senior Citizens Act 2007, but our hands
are tied in view of the dictum of the
Honb’le Supreme Court in the case Sudesh
Chikara, wherein while interpreting the
very provisions of Sun- Section (1) of
Section 23 of the Act, it has been held that
the two conditions must be stipulated in
the document, which is binding on all
including this Court as contemplated under
Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
26. The Judgments relied upon by the
learned Senior Counsel for the appellant
are not applicable to the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the present case, in view
of the latest dictum in case Sudesh
Chhikara Vs. RAMATI devi, reported in
LAWS(SC) 2022-12-17,
– 16 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-K:5450
WP No. 201848 of 2024
CNR: KAHC030040252024
27. For the reasons stated above, the point
raised in the present Intra Court Appeal is
answered in the negative holding that the
appellant has not made out any ground to
interfere with the impugned order, dated
26-2-2019 passed by the learned Single
Judge in Writ Petition No.52010/2016.
Keeping in mind the principles of the above
Judgments, I am of the opinion that Awarding
maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/ to each
Appellant No.1 and 2 payable by Respondent Nos.1
and 2 each till their life time, is just and proper
order, accordingly I proceed to pass the following
order.
ORDER
Appeal preferred by Appellant No.1, Sri.
Mareppa Kattimani @Marakappa S/o Late.
Hanumantappa and his wife Appellant No.2 Smt.
Gourabai W/o Mareppa Kattimani, both are
Residing in House No.1-4-157/11 Amareshwara
Colony, Ashapur Road, Raichur under Section 16 of
the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act 2007, is allowed.
Consequently, it is ordered and directed to
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall pay maintenance
amount of Rs.10,000/-per month to Appellant No.1
and 2 each till their life time.
Consequently, the order of the Maintenance
Tribunal, Raichur Dt.03-10-2023 in file
No.SUM/KUM/ SeniorCitizen/ 03/2023-24, is set-
aside.
– 17 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-K:5450
WP No. 201848 of 2024
CNR: KAHC030040252024
Parties to this Revision Petition are directed to
bear their own respective costs.
This order is dictated to typist, typed, corrected
and pronounced in open Court on this day of 2002-
2024.
Appellate Maintenance
Tribunal &
District Magistrate Raichur”
5. As can be seen from the impugned order passed
by the appellate authority, absolutely no reasons, much
less valid or sufficient reasons have been assigned by the
Appellate Authority as to how and why the respondent
No.5 being a retired Assistant Executive Engineer receiving
pension was not in a position to maintain himself or unable
to maintain himself due to medical grounds etc. and
consequently in the absence of any reasons assigned by
the Appellate Authority so as to reverse the finding/ order
of the Assistant Commissioner who had dismissed the
petition filed by the respondents No.5 and 6, I am of the
considered opinion that in order to enable both sides to
put forth their respective contentions before the Deputy
– 18 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-K:5450
WP No. 201848 of 2024CNR: KAHC030040252024
Commissioner and to enable him to reconsider the matter
afresh by considering and appreciating the various
documents and contentions relied upon by both sides,
without expressing any opinion on the merits/ demerits of
the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to set
aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to
the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner/ Appellate
Authority for reconsideration afresh and in accordance
with law.
6. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Petition is hereby allowed.Impugned Annexure-K dated 20.12.2023 is
hereby set aside.
Matter is remitted back to the respondent
No.2-Deputy Commissioner/ Appellate Authority
for reconsideration afresh and in accordance with
law.
– 19 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-K:5450
WP No. 201848 of 2024CNR: KAHC030040252024
Petitioners and respondents No.5 and 6 are
directed to appear before the respondent No.2 on
10.08.2026 without awaiting further notice from
the respondent No.2.
All rival contentions and all aspects of the
matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed
on the merits/ demerits of the rival contentions.
Liberty is reserved in favour of both parties
to produce pleadings, documents etc., which shall
be considered by the respondent No.2, who shall
hear both the parties and proceed further in
accordance with law.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
SMP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9
