Smt Prema vs The Maintanance Tribunal on 1 February, 2017

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt Prema vs The Maintanance Tribunal on 1 February, 2017

Bench: A S Bopanna

                             1


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017

                         BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA

         WRIT PETITION No. 2369/2017 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SMT. PREMA
W/O LATE M MAHADEV
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT NO 350,
MARIGUDI TEMPLE ROAD,
ALANAHALLI VILLAGE,
SIDHARATHA LAYOUT POST,
T NARSIPURA MAIN ROAD,
MYSORE - 570010
                                        ... PETITIONER

(By Sri. MALLIKARJUNA SWAMY S, ADV.,)


AND :

1.     THE MAINTANANCE TRIBUNAL
       AND THE ASSISTANT
       COMMISSIONER, MYSORE - 570010

2.     SMT. MADHUSHREE
       W/O LATE MANJU
       AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

3.     SMT. MAHADEVAMMA
       W/O MAHADEVAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

4.     SRI MAHADEVAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

       ALL ARE R/A 350,
       MARIGUDI TEMPLE ROAD,
       ALANAHALLI VILLAGE,
                              2

    SIDHARTHA LAYOUT POST,
    T NARASIPURA MAIN ROAD,
    MYSORE - 570010
                                       ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. R.B. SATYANARAYANA SINGH,
         ADV. FOR R1.)

      THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE R-
1 DTD:7.9.2016 IN MAG 69/2016-17 VIDE ANENXURE-A.
      .

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                       ORDER

Learned Government Advocate to accept notice for respondent No.1 and file memo of appearance in four weeks.

2. Though the prayer made in the petition is to quash the order impugned dated 07.09.2016, the grievance of the petitioner is that the proceedings initiated by the petitioner seeking maintenance, as a Senior Citizen, has not been continued further by the first respondent, but has been abruptly discontinued on 07.09.2016.

3. If that be the position, the appropriate relief is to be moulded in the instant petition. In such circumstance, since in any event the first respondent will have to hear respondents No.2 to 4 herein and thereafter proceed further, there is no need to notify respondents No.2 to 4 herein, as no order on merit is being considered in this petition.

4. The petitioner has initiated the proceedings before the first respondent under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The matter was registered on 31.08.2016 in MAG CR No.69/2016-17 and as disclosed from the order sheet the proceedings was adjourned to 07.09.2016. Except noticing certain facts, no conclusive order has been made on the said date nor has been adjourned to the next date for further consideration. It is in that view the petitioner is before this Court, making out grievance that the statutory duty cast upon the first respondent has not been discharged in accordance with law. 4

5. In a matter of present nature, since the first respondent is yet to decide rights of the parties, this Court need not go into those aspects of matter. However, since the first respondent is required to act in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act, a direction is issued to the first respondent to proceed further to take note of the complaint made by the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

The first respondent shall ensure that respondents No.2 to 4 are notified and thereafter pass appropriate orders in expeditious manner.

In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE akc/bms

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court