In a significant ruling focused on the protection of elderly parents, the Orissa High Court has set aside an appellate order passed by the Collector, holding that a son had no legal right to challenge a maintenance order under the Senior Citizens Act. The Court restored relief granted to an 83-year-old widow who had approached authorities after being neglected by her sons.
Background of the Case
The case involved an elderly widow who approached the Maintenance Tribunal seeking financial support and shelter under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
Read also:- Supreme Court Sets Aside FEMA Penalty Orders, Revives Proceedings from Show Cause Stage
According to court records, the woman’s two sons had divided the ancestral house but failed to provide her a place to stay or adequate support. With no income and advancing age, she sought legal intervention for survival and medical expenses.
In February 2024, the Sub-Collector (acting as the Tribunal) directed one son to pay ₹5,000 per month and allowed the mother to reside with the other son, ensuring she would not be disturbed in the ancestral home.
One of the sons challenged this order before the Collector under Section 16 of the 2007 Act.
Read also:- Gujarat HC Warns of Contempt Against GPSC Officials Over ‘Arthashastra’ Answer Key Row
The Collector entertained the appeal, set aside the maintenance order, and remanded the case for fresh consideration.
This prompted the elderly mother to approach the High Court, arguing that such an appeal itself was not legally maintainable.
Justice A.C. Behera closely examined Section 16 of the Act and emphasized that the law clearly limits the right to appeal.
“The provision specifically grants the right of appeal only to a senior citizen or a parent,” the Court noted.
The judge made it clear that children or relatives cannot invoke this appellate remedy.
Read also:- Madras High Court Raises Alarm Over Politically Driven Law Officer Appointments in Tamil Nadu
Referring to multiple precedents, the Court observed that the statute is a beneficial legislation meant to ensure dignity and protection of senior citizens, and must be interpreted in line with that purpose.
“The language of Section 16 is plain and unambiguous… extending this right to any other person is not permissible,” the Court stated.
The High Court held that the son, not being a “senior citizen” or “parent,” had no statutory right to file an appeal.
As a result, the Collector acted without jurisdiction in entertaining and deciding the appeal.
Allowing the writ petition, the High Court quashed the Collector’s order dated November 7, 2025.
It restored the earlier order of the Maintenance Tribunal dated February 29, 2024, which directed financial support and ensured residence rights for the elderly mother.
“The impugned order… is without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained in law,” the Court concluded.
Case Details
Case Title: Parbati Das v. Collector, Balasore & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 680 of 2026
Judge: Justice A.C. Behera
Decision Date: March 30, 2026
