HILDA DSOUZA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the mother-in-law of respondent No.4 herein, is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dtd. 29/10/2015 passed by respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner, which is confirmed by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner vide order dtd. 30/5/2022.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that she being an absolute owner of the petition schedule property had executed a gift deed in favour of her daughter-in-law/respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 had attempted to sell the property to third parties. Daughter of the petitioner had intervened and protected the property from being sold. However, respondent No.4 has shifted from Udupi to Mangaluru. The petitioner had requested respondent No.4 to look after her and protect her as per the provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (henceforth referred to as 'Act'), which was refused. As her conduct of fraud and undue influence was realized by the petitioner at the time of executing the deed of gift, the petitioner filed a petition before respondent No.3 - authority seeking cancellation of the deed of gift. The matter was contested by respondent No.4 denying the claim of the petitioner and also questioning the maintainability of the petition before respondent No.3. Accepting the same, respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner dismissed the complaint by the impugned order dtd. 29/10/2015. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner under Sec. 16 of the Act, which also came to be dismissed confirming the order passed by respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, present petition is filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court through the records submits that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have grossly erred in not appreciating the intent and spirit of the Act, which is promulgated to safeguard the interest of the senior citizens. He submits that though the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sudesh Chhikara vs. Ramti Devi and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1684, has laid down the law requiring a specific term/condition in the deed of gift regarding donee undertaking to provide amenities or maintenance to the senior citizen, the said judgment has been distinguished by various High Courts including the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. He refers to the order dtd. 29/7/2024 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.202832/2019 in the case of Smt. Shoba vs. Dr. Anil P. Kumar and another. Referring to paragraph Nos.7, 8, 9 and 10 of the said order, he submits that the distinction drawn by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court is squarely applicable to the present case as well. In that case, respondent No.4/daughter-in-law of the petitioner was duty bound to provide maintenance and basic amenities for survival of the petitioner and deliberate refusal of which has not been taken into consideration by the authority, resulting in erroneous order. Therefore, he insists that the writ petition be allowed and the order impugned be set aside.