SRI. THYAGRAJU v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 22 Sep 2025
- Bench
- R NATARAJ
- Neutral citation
- 2025:KHC:38051
Outcome
Allowed
The writ petition is allowed in part
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. (i) The respondent No.3 being the mother of the petitioner filed a petition before the respondent No.2 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:38051 WP No. 9615 of 2019 HC-KAR contending that her husband died on 28.06.2016 and that the petitioner did not take care of…
Judgment
SMT. SAKAMMA Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONER W/O LATE SRI. RANGANATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT KATAVEERANAHALLI VILLAGE, KATAVEERANAHALLI POST SIRA TALUK TUMAKUR DISTRICT-572125 …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:38051 WP No. 9615 of 2019 HC-KAR (BY SRI. SRINIVASA KUMAR M., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2; SRI. H.T.JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN MISCELLANEOUS C.R.:85/2016-17 BEFORE THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MADHUGIRI SUB-DIVISION, MADHUGIRI, TUMAKUR DISTRICT AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06.09.2017 IN MISCELLANEOUS C.R.:85/2016-17 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MADHUGIRI SUB-DIVISION, MADHUGIRI, TUMAKUR DISTRICT VIDE ANNEXURE-G BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an order dated 06.09.2017 in Misc.C.R.No.85/2016-17 passed by the respondent No.2 under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 2007').
(i) The respondent No.3 being the mother of the petitioner filed a petition before the respondent No.2 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:38051 WP No. 9615 of 2019 HC-KAR contending that her husband died on 28.06.2016 and that the petitioner did not take care of her needs and necessities. She claimed that she was not capable of maintaining herself and that attempts to resolve the dispute with the petitioner proved futile. She claimed that her husband had acquired 14 guntas in Sy.No.42/2, 11 guntas in Sy.No.47/3a and 02 acres 03 guntas in Sy.No.17/1B of Kataveeranahalli village, Kallambella Hobli, Sira Taluk. She claimed that the aforesaid three properties were the self-acquired properties of her husband. She claimed that there were certain other lands in the same village, which were the ancestral properties of her husband which was held jointly by her husband and his brothers. She claimed that the petitioner was in possession of self acquired properties of her husband and a portion of ancestral property. She therefore contends that the petitioner was bound in law to take care of her needs and necessities which he had ignored. (ii) The petition was contested by the petitioner who claimed that the respondent No.3 had lodged a complaint with Kallambella Police Station stating that she cannot live with the petitioner. He claimed that the villagers had arranged a panchayath on 05.11.2017 whereat he agreed to pay a sum of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:38051 WP No. 9615 of 2019 HC-KAR Rs.80,000/- every year, one sack of arecanut and 500 coconuts to respondent No.3. He contended that as agreed before the villagers, he would pay maintenance and also produce from the lands. The respondent No.2 after considering the case of the respondent No.3 and the petitioner, issued a direction to Tahsildar to enter the name of the respondent No.3 and the petitioner in the revenue records relating to the land in Sy.Nos.42/2, 47/3A and 17/1B and also directed the Tahsildar to ensure that the respondent No.3 is allowed to draw water from a common well and also to harvest arecanut and coconuts crop from the portion that fell to her share.
3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is in the possession of 2½ acres of land, where coconut and arecanut trees are raised. He contends that the respondent No.3 is residing in a portion of the house where the petitioner is residing. He also contends that the petitioner is willing to look after the respondent No.3 and manage properties owned by them. However, he contends that if the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:38051 WP No. 9615 of 2019 HC-KAR respondent No.3 is desirous to claim her share, she may do so, but until then the petitioner should be permitted to manage the properties.
When this petition was listed before this Court on
Operative part
18.08.2025, this Court directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent No.3 commencing from August 2025 and thereafter. The petitioner has paid the same. Since it is agreed by the petitioner that he would henceforth pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent No.3 has towards her maintenance and as respondent No.3 has accepted the same, the writ petition deserves to be disposed off on the following terms:
(i) The writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 is modified. The petitioner is directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent No.3 on or before 5th day of every month.
(ii) This arrangement shall continue as long as respondent No.3 does not claim any share in the properties in question. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:38051 WP No. 9615 of 2019 HC-KAR (iii) The petitioner shall allow the respondent No.3, to reside in the house adjacent to the place where he is residing and provide all basic amenities like water and electricity to the place where respondent No.3 is residing.
(iv) It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- respondent No.3, the respondent No.3 shall be entitled to cultivate her share in the land in question and also draw water from the common well and harvest the produce from the area that would tentatively fall to her share. This however shall not be construed as recognizing the right of respondent No.3 to claim partition of properties.
(v) The petitioner shall also pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- as agreed before the elders in the village and one bag of arecanut and 500 coconuts every year or a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- every year from November, 2017 till August, 2025, if not already paid. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:38051 WP No. 9615 of 2019 HC-KAR (vi) If the petitioner makes any request to the respondent No.3 to cooperate in getting the pledged jewels released from the bank, she shall do so without raising any objection. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition is allowed in part
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 — s. 23(1).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Karnataka High Court, on 22 Sep 2025. The bench was R NATARAJ.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.