IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOS.12910-12912 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI. THULASIDASS S/O LATE CHINNAPPA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO. 506, 3RD, 13TH MAIN ROAD, VIRAT NAGAR, BOMMANAHALLI BENGALURU - 560068.
… PETITIONER (BY SRI J SUDHAKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI. T. SANDEEP S/O THULASIDASS, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.16, BACK OF BEGUR GOVT. SCHOOL BEGUR, DEVARCHIKKANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560068.
(BY SRI Y.D.HARSHA, AGA.) … RESPONDENT THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 14.12.2018 ON CASE NO.MSC/CR/38/2017-18 OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL FOR MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS TO THE EXTENT OF DISMISSING THE PETITION TO THE EXTENT OF NOT INTERFERING WITH THE RELIEFS AS SOUGHT IN RESPECT OF SCHEDULE A, B AND C PROPERTIED VIDE ANNX-J; ALLOW THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIOENR UNDER SECTION 4 R/W. SECTION 23 OF THE MAINTENANCE & WELFARE OF PARENTS & SENIOR CITIZENS ACT 2007 VIDE ANNX- F BY ALSO ENHANCING THE AMOUNT OF MAINTENANCE AMOUNT AND GRANTING OTHER RELIEFS AS CLAIMED BY THE PETITIONER ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri J. Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri Y.D.Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent.
The petitions are admitted for hearing. With the consent of the parties, it is heard finally.
2. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the order dated 14.12.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents And Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity).
3. When the matter is taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that against the impugned order an appeal arises under Section 16 of the Act and the petitioner be granted liberty to file an appeal against the aforesaid order.
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent agrees the same.
5. In view of the aforesaid submissions and facts and situation of the case, the petitions are disposed of with liberty to take recourse of alternative remedy of filing an appeal, provided under the Act. If such an appeal is filed within a period of two weeks before the appellate authority, then the appellate authority shall invoke the principles contained in Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and decide the appeal, which may be preferred by the petitioner, in accordance with law.
6. In view of the aforesaid submission, writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the liberty as prayed for.
Sd/- JUDGE nvj