The Orissa High Court held that only a parent or senior citizen can file an appeal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Court quashed the Collector’s order filed on a son’s appeal and restored maintenance and residence rights of the 83-year-old mother.
The Orissa High Court has recently delivered an important judgment regarding the rights of senior citizens under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Court clearly held that the right to file an appeal against an order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal is available only to a senior citizen or a parent, and not to children or relatives.
The Court said that if children are allowed to file appeals against maintenance orders, it would defeat the purpose of this welfare law, which is meant to protect elderly parents and ensure they live with dignity and basic support.
This judgment was passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice A.C. Behera in a case filed by an 83-year-old widow. The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the elderly mother and set aside the appellate order dated 07.11.2025 passed by the Collector, Balasore.
The Court held that the Collector had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal filed by the son. The Court also restored and confirmed the earlier order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the Sub-Collector, which had directed the sons to provide maintenance and accommodation to their mother.
The Court clearly stated that an appeal under Section 16 of the 2007 Act cannot be filed by a son because he is neither a “parent” nor a “senior citizen” under the law.
The case was filed by an elderly widow aged about 83 years who alleged that her two sons had neglected and abandoned her. As per the case record, the sons had partitioned the ancestral house between themselves but did not provide any space for their mother to live. This left her without shelter and without any proper means of survival.
The mother also told the authorities that she had no independent income and was facing serious difficulty in managing her daily needs and medical expenses. Because of this situation, she approached the Maintenance Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and asked for financial support and protection.
The sons opposed her claim and argued that there was already an understanding between them regarding their mother’s maintenance and that they were not neglecting their responsibilities. However, after examining the evidence and records, the Maintenance Tribunal found that the elderly mother was physically unable to maintain herself and that she had not been given any accommodation in the ancestral house.
Therefore, the Tribunal passed an order directing one son to provide residence and take care of the mother, and directed the other son to pay Rs. 5,000 per month as maintenance. The Tribunal also ordered that the mother should not be stopped from living in the ancestral house.
One of the sons was unhappy with this order and filed an appeal before the Collector under Section 16 of the Act. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and sent the matter back for fresh consideration. The elderly mother then challenged this appellate order before the High Court, arguing that the appeal filed by the son itself was not maintainable under the law.
The High Court then examined Section 16 of the Act and carefully interpreted the provision. The Court noted that the law clearly says that an appeal can be filed only by “any senior citizen or parent” who is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal.
The Court said that the wording of the law is clear and there is no confusion in it, and therefore the right of appeal cannot be extended to children or relatives. The Court observed that the son who filed the appeal did not fall within the category of persons who are allowed to file an appeal under the Act.
The Court also emphasized that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is a beneficial and welfare legislation. It has been made to provide social justice to parents and senior citizens so that they can live with dignity, security, and proper financial support.
The Court said that this law must be interpreted in such a way that its objective is fulfilled. The Court further observed that if children are allowed to challenge maintenance orders by filing appeals, even when the law does not allow them, it would weaken the protection given to senior citizens and would go against the purpose of the Act.
The High Court also referred to judgments from other High Courts and repeated that the right of appeal under Section 16 is available only to parents and senior citizens and not to children. Therefore, the Court held that the Collector had acted without jurisdiction in accepting the appeal and passing the order.
The Court also noted that the original order of the Maintenance Tribunal was passed to ensure the elderly mother’s dignity, safety, and basic survival in her old age. The order was in line with the objective of the Act and the Rules, which are made to protect the life and property of senior citizens.
After considering all the facts and legal provisions, the High Court held that the appellate order passed by the Collector was illegal and could not be sustained in law. The Court set aside the Collector’s order and restored the Tribunal’s order which granted maintenance and residence to the elderly mother.
Through this judgment, the High Court once again confirmed that the law strongly protects senior citizens from neglect and that children cannot misuse the legal process to avoid their responsibility.
Case Title:
Parbati Das v. Collector, Balasore & Ors.
Click Here to Read More Reports on West Bengal
