1

R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA

WRIT PETITION No.54488/2017(GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

N. D. VANAMALA
D/O. N. B. DHARMAPAL,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
C/O. BARAMAIAH’S AND SONS,
#29/30, LASHKER MOHALLA,
ASHOKA ROAD,
MYSURU-570 001.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI ABUBACKER SHAFI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

MYSURU DISTRICT,
MYSURU-570 005.

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

MYSURU SUB DIVISION,
MYSURU-570 005.
 2

4. MRS. N. D. SUVARNA
W/O. N. B. DHARMA PAL,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
C/O. G. B. RAJAKUMARI,
#450/4, KOTTHVALRAMAIAH STREET,
DEVARAJA MOHALLA,
MYSURU-570001.

5. N. D. ASHOK KUMAR,
S/O. N. B. DHARMAPAL,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
C/O. BARAMAIAH’S AND SONS,
#29/30, LASHKER MOHALLA,
ASHOKA ROAD,
MYSURU-570 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.A. SUBRAMANI, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;
SMT. SREEDEVI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI JAI M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI M. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

……

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 15.3.2017 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND IN
CONSEQUENCE ALSO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE RESPONDENT No.2 DATED 8.11.2017 VIDE
ANNEXURE-F.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
 3

ORDER

The present writ petition is filed by the daughter of

the fourth respondent seeking for a writ of certiorari to

quash the order dated 15.03.2017 made in M.A.G.No.

121/2016-17 passed by the third respondent- Assistant

Commissioner vide Annexure-C and the Order dated

08.11.2017 made in Revision Misc. (HNK) 12/2017

passed by the second respondent/Deputy

Commissioner, vide Annexure-F.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that she is a widow,

she lost her husband about 33 years ago, the fourth

respondent is her mother and the fifth respondent is her

elder brother. After the demise of her husband,

petitioner has been living with her unmarried daughter

and the fourth respondent. The petitioner has been

taking care of her mother-fourth respondent without

causing any inconvenience to her and has been paying

 4

`3,000/- every month to the fourth respondent to look

after herself and is taking care of her day to day affairs.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that, on

08.07.2015, her mother-fourth respondent, without any

conditions, executed an absolute gift deed in favour of

the petitioner with respect to the house property bearing

No.29, L-335, 30, L-335/1, Sub No.29, L-335/A and 30,

L-335/1 measuring East to West 55 feet, North to South

12 feet out of which ground floor measures East to West

19 ½ feet, North to South 12 feet; first floor measures

East to West 19 ½ feet, North to South 12 feet; and

second floor measures East to West 19 ½ feet, North to

South 12 feet, situated at Ashoka Road, Lashker

Mohall, Mysuru City. The said gift deed was registered

in the office of the Sub Registrar, Mysuru East, as per

Annexure-A.

4. When the things stood thus, without knowing

what is going on, the fourth respondent signed a

 5

complaint prepared by the fifth respondent and

submitted it to the third respondent. In the complaint,

the fourth respondent was forced to allege that the

petitioner has neglected the fourth respondent and

hence, prayed to cancel the gift deed. It is further

contended that the third respondent took up the matter

under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of

Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, (‘Act’ for short),

but failed to comply with Section 8 of the ‘Act’. As per

Section 8 of the Act, the third respondent has got all

such powers of the Civil Court for the purpose of taking

evidence on oath and of enforcing attendance of

witnesses, as such, the third respondent was supposed

to follow ‘summary procedure’. Without following the

procedure contemplated under Sections 6(6) and 8 of

the ‘Act’, the third respondent has proceeded to pass the

impugned order declaring the gift deed dated

08.07.2015 as null and void. Aggrieved by the said

order of the third respondent-Assistant Commissioner,

 6

the petitioner filed an appeal before the second

respondent- Deputy Commissioner invoking the

provisions of Section 16 of the ‘Act’. The said appeal

was dismissed as not maintainable. Hence the present

writ petition is filed.

5. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent

submits that the respondent No.4 has filed objections to

I.A. No.1/2018 and in the said objections, she has

taken contentions negating the pleadings made in the

writ petition and it is specifically contended that the

fourth respondent is the sole and absolute owner in

possession and enjoyment of the property stated supra

and since the petitioner was illegally interfering with the

possession and enjoyment of the property, the fourth

respondent filed a suit for temporary injunction in O.S.

No.1249/2017 and the Trial Court granted injunction

on 15.12.2017. It is further contended that the

petitioner was taking care of the fourth respondent and

 7

in anticipation that the petitioner would take care of her

in future, the fourth respondent executed a gift deed

dated 08.07.2015 in favor of the petitioner. After

execution of the gift deed, the petitioner started to

neglect the fourth respondent and did not take care of

the basic necessities. Having no other option, the

fourth respondent approached the third respondent

seeking cancellation of the gift deed dated 08.07.2015

and the same was allowed. It is further contended that

the petitioner and fifth respondent are the children of

fourth respondent. After demise of the husband of the

fourth respondent, family partition was effected on

26.06.2015. Under the said partition, all the three

members i.e., the petitioner, respondent Nos.4 and 5 got

one property each out of three properties. Later, the

petitioner convinced the fourth respondent that she will

take care of all her basic needs and she would be

permitted to stay in the property which has fallen to her

share. Having trusted the petitioner, the fourth

 8

respondent started living with the petitioner and initially

the petitioner took good care of fourth respondent.

Subsequently, petitioner convinced the fourth

respondent that she would ensure that all her needs

would be taken care during her life time and in turn

requested to transfer the property that has fallen to the

share of the fourth respondent in favour of the

petitioner. Having trusted the petitioner, the fourth

respondent executed the gift deed dated 08.07.2015

wherein it is categorically stated that ‘in view of the fact

that the petitioner was taking good care of the fourth

respondent, she is executing the gift deed’. It is further

contended that in view of the gift deed executed, it was

expected that the petitioner shall take good care of the

fourth respondent and the same would amount to a pre

condition while executing the gift deed. After execution

of the gift deed, the petitioner changed her behaviour

and started harassing her own mother-the fourth

respondent. The fourth respondent came to know that

 9

the initial love and affection was shown only to grab the

property. Therefore, the fourth respondent filed an

application before the third respondent-Assistant

Commissioner for cancellation of gift deed. The third

respondent rightly allowed the application and

therefore, sought to dismiss the writ petition.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to

the lis.

7. Sri Abubacker Shafi, learned counsel for the

petitioner contended that the impugned order passed by

the third respondent is erroneous and contrary to the

material on record and is liable to be set-aside. He

would further contend that the third respondent failed

to notice the contents of the gift deed, which is

unconditional and absolute. Therefore, the third

respondent does not have jurisdiction to consider the

case of the fourth respondent and the fourth respondent

has to approach the competent Civil Court seeking

 10

cancellation of the gift deed. Therefore, the impugned

order passed by the third respondent cannot be

sustained.

8. He further contended that the third respondent

erred in not considering the provisions of Section 6(6) of

the ‘Act’ and no enquiry is conducted. He further

contended that the third respondent failed to take note

of the fact that the petitioner has been paying `3,000/-

every month to the fourth respondent in addition to

taking care of her day to day needs. Therefore, he

sought to quash the impugned orders passed by the

third respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner

fairly submits that the appeal filed by the petitioner

before the Deputy Commissioner was rightly dismissed.

Therefore, the attack is only against the order passed by

the third respondent-Assistant Commissioner.

9. In support of his contention, the learned counsel

for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the

 11

Bombay High Court in the case of Rahul vs. Gotu

Nana reported in LAWS (BOM) 2018 6 122. He

referred to paragraph 21. It was a case filed by the

third party in respect of civil rights. Therefore, the

Bombay High Court held that the provisions of Sections

4 and 23 of the Act are not applicable. The facts of the

said case have no application to the facts of the present

case.

10. Per contra, Smt. Sridevi, learned counsel

appearing for the fourth respondent sought to justify

the impugned order. While reiterating the contentions

taken in the statement of objections, she contended that

the petitioner has not taken care of her own mother –

fourth respondent. Therefore, the fourth respondent

filed an application under Section 23 of the ‘Act’ before

the third respondent. Petitioner has not produced any

material before this Court or before the Assistant

Commissioner to establish the fact that she was paying

 12

`3,000/- every month for her maintenance. The

provisions of Sections 6(6) and 8(2) of the Act relied

upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner applies

only in a case where the application is filed under

Section 5 of the ‘Act’. The third respondent, considering

the entire material on record, exercising his powers

under the provisions of Section 23 of the ‘Act’, has

passed the impugned order. The same is in accordance

with law. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief

before this Court and therefore, sought to dismiss the

writ petition. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment

of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in the case

Shabeen Martin and another vs. Muriel and another

reported in AIR 2017 (NOC 1061) 362.

11. Sri M.A.Subramani, learned High Court

Government Pleader, while supporting the order passed

by the third respondent, contended that the object of

the ‘Act’ is to protect the senior citizens. The gift deed is

 13

executed after coming into force of the Act. The ‘Act’

applies, if the relatives or the daughter fail to perform

their obligations of looking after the elder persons. The

order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is just and

proper and this Court cannot interfere with the

impugned order. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the

writ petition.

12. In view of the rival contentions urged by the

learned counsel for the parties, the only point that

arises for consideration in this writ petition is:

“Whether the Assistant Commissioner is

justified in canceling the gift deed dated
08.07.2015 exercising the power under the
provisions of Section 23 of the Maintenance
and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens
Act, 2007?

13. I have given my anxious consideration to the

arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the

parties and perused the papers, carefully.

 14

14. The admitted facts are that, the petitioner and

fifth respondent are the daughter and son of the fourth

respondent. It is the specific case of the petitioner that

she was taking care of her mother- the fourth

respondent. Out of love and affection, the fourth

respondent executed a registered gift deed in favour of

the petitioner on 08.07.2015 in respect of the property

stated supra and only at the instance of the fifth

respondent, the fourth respondent filed an application

before the third respondent.

15. The substance of the case of the fourth respondent

before the third respondent is that the fourth

respondent is aged about 78 years, the respondents

before the Assistant Commissioner are her children.

She executed a gift deed in favour of her daughter

believing that she would take care of her. But her

daughter has failed to take care of her and therefore,

she wanted to cancel the gift deed.

 15

16. In view of the rival contentions urged by the

learned counsel for the parties, it is relevant to discuss

the statement of objects and reasons to enact the ‘Act’,

which reads as under:

“Traditional norms and values of the Indian

society laid stress on providing care for the elderly.
However, due to withering of the joint family
system, a large number of elderly are not being
looked after by their family. Consequently, many
older persons, particularly widowed women are
now forced to spend their twilight years all alone
and are exposed to emotional neglect and to lack
of physical and financial support. This clearly
reveals that ageing has become a major social
challenge and there is a need to give more
attention to the care and protection for the older
persons. Though the parents can claim
maintenance under the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, the procedure is both time-
consuming as well as expensive. Hence, there is a
need to have simple, inexpensive and speedy
provisions to claim maintenance for parents.”
 16

17. Therefore, the parliament enacted The

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens

Act, 2007, which came into force w.e.f. 29th December

2007 and the Government of Karnataka in exercise of

the powers under sub Section (3) of Section 1 of the ‘Act’

appoints the 01st day of April 2008 as the day on which

the provisions of the said Act shall come into force in

the State of Karnataka.

18. The definition of the words ‘children’, ‘parent’

‘relative’, ‘senior citizens’ and ‘welfare’ under Sections

2(a), (d), (g), (h) and (k) reads as under:

“2(a) “children” includes son,

daughter, grandson and grand-
daughter but does not include a
minor;

2(d) “parent” means father or

mother whether biological,
adoptive or step-father or step-
mother, as the case may be,
whether or not the father or the
mother is a senior citizen;
 17

(2(g). “relative” means any legal

heir of the childless senior citizen
who is not a minor and is in
possession of or would inherit his
property after his death;

2(h). “senior Citizen” means any

person being a citizen of India,
who has attained the age of sixty
years or above;

2(k). “welfare” means provision

for food, health care, recreation
centers and other amenities
necessary for the senior citizens.”

19. Further, Sections 23 and 24, reads as under:

“23. Transfer of property to be

void in certain circumstances.-

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 transferor and such
transferee refuses or fails to
provide such amenities 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.
 18

2. Where any senior citizen

has a right to receive
maintenance out of an estate and
such estate or part thereof is
transferred, the right to receive
maintenance may be enforced
against the transferee if the
transferee has notice of the right,
or if the transfer is gratuitous;
but not against the transferee for
consideration and without notice
of right.

3. If, any senior citizen is

incapable of enforcing the rights
under sub-sections (1) and (2),
action may be taken on his behalf
by any of the organisation
referred to in Explanation to sub-
section (1) of section 5.

24. Exposure and abandonment

of senior citizen.-

Whoever, having the care or

protection of senior citizen leaves,
such senior citizen in any place
with the intention of wholly
abandoning such senior citizen,
shall be punishable with
imprisonment of either
description for a term which may
extend to three months or fine
which may extend to five
thousand rupees or with both.”
 19

20. A combined reading of the said provisions makes

it clear that even if the property has been transferred by

way of gift or otherwise, the transferee shall provide the

basic amenities and basic physical needs to the

transferor and if the transferee refuses or fails to

provide such amenities 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. Likewise, whoever having the care and

protection of the senior citizen, leaves such senior

citizen in any place with the intention of wholly

abandoning such senior citizen, is punishable with

imprisonment or fine or both.

21. Admittedly in the present case, it is the specific

case of the fourth respondent that she is a widow, aged

about 82 years as on today and 78 years as on the date

of filing application before the Assistant Commissioner

 20

and she has been ignored, abandoned and not taken

care of by the petitioner after obtaining a registered gift

deed. Though a contention was taken by the learned

counsel for the petitioner that no condition was

mentioned in the gift deed that the petitioner should

take care of the fourth respondent and therefore, the

Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction to nullify

the registered gift deed under Section 23 of the ‘Act’,

cannot be accepted, for the simple reason that the

words used in Section 23 of the ‘Act’ clearly depicts

that, ‘where any senior citizen who, after the

commencement of the 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 transferor and such

transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and

physical needs, the said transfer of property shall be

deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or

 21

under undue influence and shall at the option of the

transferor be declared void by the Tribunal’.

22. Admittedly in the present case, the gift deed was

executed by the fourth respondent under the bonafide

belief that the petitioner being her daughter will take

care of her during her old age. But, after obtaining the

gift deed, the petitioner has shown her real colour and

deprived the basic amenities and physical needs to the

fourth respondent. Therefore, the fourth respondent

filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner

seeking cancellation of the gift deed executed by her in

favour of the petitioner. The contention of the counsel

for petitioner that there must be a condition in the gift

deed to take care of the transferor cannot be accepted.

If such contention is accepted, then the very purpose of

enacting the ‘Act’ by the legislators and introducing

Sections 23 and 24 in the Act would become futile.

That is not the intention of the legislators while enacting

 22

the ‘Act’. The main object of the ‘Act’ is to provide for

more effective provisions for the maintenance and

welfare of parents and senior citizens guaranteed and

recognized under the Constitution of India and to

protect the Senior Citizens at the fag end of their life.

Even otherwise, it is the Duty and Dharma of the

children to take care of their aged parents.

23. In the case on hand, the properties were divided

among the petitioner, 4th and 5th respondents, equally,

in a partition dated 26.06.2015. The fourth respondent

being the mother, transferred the property fallen to her

share in favour of the petitioner under the bonafide

belief that the petitioner will take care of the fourth

respondent in her old age. But the petitioner has failed

to take care of the fourth respondent. Therefore, the

impugned order passed by the third respondent-

Assistant Commissioner exercising his powers under

Section 23(1) of the ‘Act’ is in accordance with law.

 23

Even the second respondent-Deputy Commissioner has

rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner

under the provisions of Section 16 of the ‘Act’. The right

of Appeal under the ‘Act’ is limited to senior citizens or

parents or guardians only. Only they can be treated as

aggrieved persons. Appeal filed by son, daughter,

daughter-in-law, grandson and grand daughter against

whom the order is passed by the Tribunal is not

maintainable.

24. It is also relevant to mention here that the fourth

respondent also filed O.S.No.1249/2017 against the

present petitioner for permanent injunction in respect of

her property in question and the same is pending

adjudication. The petitioner also filed O.S.No.

1242/2017 for injunction against the fourth respondent

in respect of the very property in question. It is

unfortunate that the petitioner has suppressed the said

material facts of the pendency of suits between the

 24

parties. It clearly depicts that the petitioner has not

come to the Court with clean hands, heart and mind.

On that ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be

rejected. It is relevant to state at this stage that the

jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred in respect of any

matter covered under the provisions of the ‘Act’, in view

of the provisions of Section 27 of the ‘Act’.

25. Taking into consideration the above facts and

circumstances, the point raised for consideration in the

above writ petition has to be answered in the Affirmative

holding that the Assistant Commissioner is justified in

canceling the gift deed dated 08.07.2015, exercising the

powers conferred under the provisions of Section 23 of

the ‘Act’.

26. “It is well settled that ageing has become a major

social challenge and there is a need to give more

attention to the care and protection for the elder

persons. Old age is incurable, increase of disease, you

 25

do not heal old age, you protect it, you promote it, you

extend it.” Admittedly in the present case, the children

of the 4th respondent are educated, but they are not

taking care of the mother and the petitioner who is the

daughter of the 4th respondent/mother got the gift deed

from the 4th respondent on the pretext that she will take

care of the 4th respondent throughout her life and after

getting the gift deed in her favour, the petitioner

deprived the basic amenities and physical needs to the

4th respondent. Therefore, the 4th respondent was

driven before the Assistant Commissioner/3rd

respondent invoking the provisions of the ‘Act’. “It is

high time for the heartless sons/daughters etc., to know

that the life consists of reaction, resound and reflection.

What they are doing to their parents today would get

back exactly tomorrow. What is the use of their

education, power-position and wealth, when it does not

help them to change their destiny. When the bad

 26

thoughts enter their mind; their education, intelligence,

power and wealth become futile and meaningless.”

27. “There are no greater gods than parents. There is

no greater Dharma than compassion, there is no enemy

greater than anger, there is no wealth greater than good

reputation, bad reputation is death itself. Even

according to Manusmruthi, No person can repay his

parents even in 100 years for all the troubles that they

go through to give birth to him/her and raise him/ her

to adulthood. Therefore, always try to do whatever

pleases your parents and your teacher, because only

then does any religious worship done by you will bear

some fruit.”

28. The object of the ‘Act’ is not to punish a person for

neglecting to maintain those whom he is bound to

maintain. It is to provide simple, inexpensive and

speedy remedy to the parents and senior citizens, who

are in distress, by a summary procedure. The

 27

provisions of the Act have to be liberally construed as

the primary object is to give social justice to parents and

senior citizens by compelling those who can support

those who are unable to support themselves. They are

intended to achieve this social purpose.

29. The legislators enacted the provisions of the ‘Act’

and ‘Rules’ thereunder to ensure proper care and safety

of senior citizens. Inspite of the said provisions enacted

by the legislature, the “Court or the Authority cannot

follow the proposition of “wait and watch” by sitting on

the fence and it is not expected that the senior citizens

will run from pillar to post and the assault and abuses

by their children would be allowed to be continued and

senior citizens cannot be used as commodity or chattel

by their children.” The circumstances warrants that

the Court has to act as a guardian to protect Dharma.

At this juncture, it is apt to extract verse 7-8 of Chapter

4 of the Bhagavadgeetha, which says:

 28

“AiÀÄzÁ AiÀÄzÁ»zsÀªÀÄð¸Àå UÁ褨sÀðªÀw ¨sÁgÀvÀ

C¨sÀÄåzÁ£ÀªÀÄzsÀªÀÄð¸Àå vÀzÁvÁä£ÁA ¸ÀÈeÁªÀÄåºÀA
¥ÀjvÁæuÁAiÀÄ ¸ÁzsÀÆ£ÁA «£Á±ÁAiÀÄ ZÀ zÀĵÀÌvø ÁA
zsÀªÀÄð ¸ÀA¸ÁÞ¥À£ÁxÁðAiÀÄ ¸ÀA¨sÀªÁ«Ä AiÀÄÄUÉà AiÀÄÄUÉÃ!”

which means:

Whenever there is decay of righteousness, O

Bharata,
And there is exaltation of unrighteousness,
then I myself come forth;
For the protection of the good, for the
destruction of evil-doers,
For the sake of firmly establishing
righteousness, I am born from age to age.

30. By careful reading of the definition of the words

‘children’, ‘maintenance’, ‘parent’, ‘relative’, ‘senior

citizens’ and ‘welfare’ as contemplated under Section

2(a),(b),(d),(g),(h) and (k) of the ‘Act’, it clearly depicts

that the word ‘children’ includes son, daughter,

grandson, grand- daughter, but does not include a

minor; ‘maintenance’ includes provision for food,

clothing, residence and medical attendance and

treatment; ‘parent’ means father or mother, whether

biological, adoptive or step-father or step-mother, as the

 29

case may be, whether or not the father or the mother is

a senior citizen; ‘relative’ means any legal heir of

childless senior citizen who is not a minor and is in

possession of or would inherit his property after his

death; ‘senior citizens’ means any person being a senior

citizen of India, who has attained the age of sixty years

or above including the citizens of India outside India;

and ‘welfare’ means provision for food, healthcare,

recreation centres and other amenities necessary for the

senior citizens. The ‘welfare measures’ can be imposed

against any person, based on the accepted relationship

between the parties involving mutual obligations for a

considerable time, though such persons may not have

legal obligation to pay the maintenance. The

maintenance, of course, can be ordered only against the

persons mentioned as ‘children’ or ‘relative’ as defined

under Sections 2(a) and 2(g) of the ‘Act’. Though there

is no special provision for providing ‘welfare’ to the

senior citizen, the scheme of the ‘Act’ itself gives a room

 30

for the Tribunal to protect the ‘welfare’ of a senior

citizen. It is open for the Tribunal to impose a liability

for providing ‘welfare measures’ on whom the Tribunal

deems fit that it can be imposed, based on the accepted

relationship between the parties. Otherwise, the very

purpose and object of the Act would be defeated.

31. The children forget the fact that the child become

adult and the adult become old. That is the process of

life and ultimately, the life is like a horse cart. Sri

D.V.Gundappa in “Mankuthimmana Kagga” at verse-

600 has said as under:

“§zÀÄPÀÄ dlPÁ§Ar, «¢üAiÀÄzÀgÀ ¸ÁºÉç

PÀÄzÀÄgÉ ¤Ã£ï, CªÀ£ÀÄ ¥ÉüÀÝAvÉ ¥ÀAiÀÄtÂUÀgÀÄ
ªÀÄzÀĪÉUÉÆà ªÀĸÀtPÉÆà ºÉÆÃUÉAzÀ PÀqÉUÉÆÃqÀÄ
¥ÀzÀ PÀĹAiÉÄ £É®«ºÀÄzÀÄ- ªÀÄAPÀÄwªÀÄä”
Which means:

“Life is like a Tonga. Providence is the

master.
You are the horse. Passengers are chosen by
the master.
So, you will have brief company of whom He
Chooses for you.
The ride could be to a wedding or a funeral.
You are not to ask-just run.
 31

If your legs fail, don’t’ worry there is

Ground below to support you”- Mankuthimma

32. It is also relevant to state that the parents also

should understand that their children are supreme

asset of the nation. A proper education encompassing

skill development, recreation and cultural activity has a

positive impact on the child. The children are the most

important human resources whose development has a

direct impact on the development of the nation for the

child today with suitable health, sound education and

constructive environment is the productive key member

of the society. The children are the treasures of their

parents and parents should develop love and affection

towards the children, grand children, burying their

egoistic attitude and they should concentrate towards

‘dhyana’ at the fag end of their life. Our history reveals

that there are parents who sacrificed their lives to the

children and the children who sacrificed their life to the

parents. It is only a mutual love and affection between

 32

the two. If there is love and affection between two, there

cannot be any rift in the family and there would be no

question of either children going against the parents or

parents going against the children to the Court to

protect their rights including invoking the provisions of

the ‘Act’. The parents shall create a good atmosphere in

the family by their love and affection to regain the

confidence of children, daughter-in-law, grand children.

The children also should understand the fact that

without their parents, they would not have been on the

earth and would not have enjoyed the educational

prospects including job, wealth and other

luxuriousness. It is only the parents’ contribution.

33. It is relevant at this stage to extract the verse-174

from “Mankuthimmana Kagga”, which is as under:

“vÀAzÉ ªÀÄPÀ̽UÉ ºÀzÀUÉlÄÖzÀ£ÀÄ PÁuÉAiÀiÁ

ºÉÆA¢gÀªÀgÀªÀgÀºÀAvÉAiÀÄÄ ªÉƼÉAiÀÄĪÀ£ÀPÀ
vÀAzÉAiÀiÁgï ªÀÄPÀ̼Ágï £Á£ÉA§ÄzÉzÀÄݤ¯É
§AzsÀ ªÀÄÄjªÀÅzÀÄ §½PÀ ªÀÄAPÀÄwªÀÄä.”
 33

The English translation of the said verse is:

Have you seen rift between parents and children?

They live in harmony until self-importance takes
over,
What of father and what of son, when ego reigns?
Then, the relationship is blighted-Mankuthimma.

34. In view of the aforesaid reasons and

circumstances, taking into consideration the object of

the Act, the impugned order passed by the Assistant

Commissioner-third respondent is just and proper and

the petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere

with the impugned orders in exercise of power under

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.

35. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition,

I.A.No.1/2018 for stay is also dismissed.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-
JUDGE
kcm