Bengaluru: A complaint filed by a woman against her husband, a senior citizen, is not maintainable under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the Karnataka high court has ruled while allowing a petition filed by HV Lingappa, a retired KSRTC conductor.Lingappa and Nagarathnamma have been married for 35 years and have two daughters and a son, all of whom are married. Lingappa, 73, a resident of Holenarasipura taluk in Hassan district, challenged the orders of the assistant commissioner, who functions as a tribunal under the Act, and the deputy commissioner, the appellate authority. The authorities had directed that the khata of the family’s agricultural properties include Nagarathnamma’s name. Lingappa contended that this decision was contrary to a civil court decree, which held that Nagarathnamma could not claim any share during his lifetime.After examining the provisions of the Act, Justice Lalitha Kanneganti observed that a woman cannot seek relief under it by filing a complaint against her husband, who is a senior citizen.“The Act is beneficial and protective for senior citizens, but not adversarial against them. The wife does not fall within the class of persons entitled to initiate proceedings against the husband. If she has any grievance, other remedies are available,” the court noted. The judge further observed that since the property dispute had attained finality before a civil court, the wife’s application seeking mutation of her name was beyond the powers of the assistant commissioner and the DC commissioner.“It is unfortunate that both authorities exceeded their jurisdiction and entertained such an application,” the court said. The court clarified that the jurisdiction under the Act is summary in nature and limited to maintenance, protection, and eviction in specific circumstances. It is not meant to adjudicate complex civil or matrimonial disputes. Authorities must act within the scope of the statute and cannot assume powers not vested in them. Orders passed beyond the Act’s scope are liable to be set aside for jurisdictional error.The judge also remarked that while the Act is protection-oriented, it is sometimes used strategically in family disputes involving property and financial interests. Authorities must remain cautious and ensure that there is no abuse of process while exercising their powers under the Act. With these observations, the high court quashed the orders passed by the assistant commissioner and the deputy commissioner.
