Only Parents Can Appeal Under Senior Citizens Act: Orissa HC Quashes Son’s Challenge

The Orissa High Court has held that under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the right to file an appeal against an order of the Maintenance Tribunal is exclusively available to a senior citizen or a parent, and not to children or relatives, setting aside an appellate order passed at the instance of a son challenging maintenance granted to his elderly mother.

The Court emphasized that permitting such appeals would defeat the object of the beneficial legislation intended to secure dignity and sustenance for senior citizens.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice A.C. Behera, allowed the writ petition filed by an 83-year-old widow and quashed the order dated 07.11.2025 passed by the Collector, Balasore in appeal, holding it to be without jurisdiction.

The Court restored and confirmed the order of the Sub-Collector dated 29.02.2024, which had directed the petitioner’s sons to provide her maintenance and accommodation, reiterating that an appeal under Section 16 of the 2007 Act cannot be maintained by a son who is neither a “parent” nor a “senior citizen” under the statute.

The case arose from a petition filed by an elderly widow, aged about 83 years, who alleged neglect and abandonment by her two sons.

According to the record, the sons had partitioned the ancestral house among themselves without providing any space for their mother, leaving her without shelter or means of sustenance.

With no independent income and facing difficulty in meeting even her basic needs and medical expenses, she approached the Maintenance Tribunal under the 2007 Act seeking financial support and protection.

The sons resisted the claim, asserting that there had been an earlier understanding between them regarding her maintenance and that they were not negligent in discharging their obligations.

However, the Maintenance Tribunal, after considering the material on record, found that the petitioner was physically incapable of maintaining herself and had not been provided any accommodation in the ancestral home.

It accordingly directed one son to provide residence and care, and the other to pay Rs. 5,000 per month towards her maintenance, while also ensuring that she would not be obstructed from residing in the ancestral house.

Aggrieved by this order, one of the sons preferred an appeal before the Collector under Section 16 of the Act.

The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

This order was challenged by the mother before the High Court on the ground that the appeal itself was not maintainable under the statute.

The High Court examined the scope of Section 16 of the Act and noted that the provision clearly restricts the right of appeal to “any senior citizen or parent” aggrieved by an order of the Tribunal.

The Court held that the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, leaving no scope for extending the right of appeal to children or other relatives.

It observed that the son, who had preferred the appeal, did not fall within the category of persons entitled to invoke the appellate jurisdiction under the Act.

The Court further underscored that the legislation is a beneficial statute enacted to provide social justice to parents and senior citizens, and must be interpreted in a manner that advances its object.

Allowing children to challenge maintenance orders through appeals, despite the statutory bar, would dilute the protection intended to be afforded to elderly persons and undermine the purpose of the enactment.

Referring to precedents from various High Courts, the Court reiterated that the right of appeal under Section 16 is confined exclusively to parents and senior citizens and cannot be invoked by children.

It held that the Collector had acted without jurisdiction in entertaining the appeal and passing the impugned order.

The Court also noted that the original order of the Maintenance Tribunal had been passed to ensure the petitioner’s dignity, security, and sustenance in her old age, in line with the objectives of the Act and the corresponding Rules which mandate protection of senior citizens’ life and property.

In view of these findings, the High Court held that the appellate order was unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside.

It restored the Tribunal’s directions granting maintenance and residence to the petitioner, thereby reaffirming the statutory protection available to senior citizens against neglect by their children.

Case Title: Parbati Das v. Collector, Balasore & Ors.

Bench: Justice A.C. Behera

Date of Judgment: 30.03.2026