Orissa High Court
Unknown vs Collector on 30 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.680 of 2026
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India)
Parbati Das .... Petitioner
-versus-
Collector, Balasore and .... Opposite Parties
others
Appeared in this case:-
For Petitioner : Mr. S.S. Pradhan, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. G. Mohanty,
Learned Standing Counsel
(For the State Opposite Party
Nos.1 and 2)
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing : 23.03.2026 / date of judgment : 30.03.2026
A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner
(old widow mother of the Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4)
praying for quashing the impugned order dated
07.11.2025 (Annexure-4) passed in Misc. Appeal No.12 of
2024 under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 by the Collector,
Balasore(Opposite Party No.1) and to confirm the order
dated 29.02.2024(Annexure-2) passed in Misc. Case No.49
of 2023 by the Sub-Collector, Balasore-cum-Presiding
Officer, Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act, 2007(Opposite Party No.2).
2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which
prompted the old widow petitioner for filing of the same is
that, she(petitioner) is an old widow helpless senior citizen
as well as mother of the Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4 and her
present age is 83 years. Her one son, i.e., Opposite Party
No.3(Rajendra Das) is a vegetable seller and her another
son, i.e., Opposite Party No.4(Jitendra Das) is a Home guard
and they(Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4) both are married. Her
sons, i.e., Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4 divided her
husband’s ancestral house between them without providing
any room therein to her(petitioner) for her stay.
She(petitioner) has no income of her own. Due to her
extreme old age, she(petitioner) is not able to maintain her
and she has nothing with her to maintain. When, her sons,
i.e., Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4 did not provide
her(petitioner) anything for her sustenance and medical
Page 2 of 14
expenses, then, without getting any way, she(petitioner)
filed Misc. Case No.49 of 2023 before the Sub-Collector,
Balasore-cum-Presiding Officer, Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007(Opposite Party No.2)
under Section 7 of the said Act, 2007 praying for directing
her sons(Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4 in this writ petition)
for providing her maintenance and financial assistance for
her medical treatments and expenditures.
3. To which, her two sons, i.e., Opposite Party Nos.3 and
4 objected by filing objection stating therein that, there was
an amicable settlement between them to provide
maintenance to the petitioner, for which, there is no
negligence on their part in providing maintenance to
her(petitioner). They are residing in their ancestral
residential house in separate mess. Presently, the Opposite
Party No.4(Jitendra Das) is staying with his family in his
Government quarter and there was a mutual understanding
between them on dated 11.11.2021 before the District
Mediation Centre, Balasore under DLSA, Balasore that, the
Opposite Party No.3(Rajendra Das) shall pay Rs.1,000/-
(rupees one thousand) per month to the Opposite Party
Page 3 of 14
No.4(Jitendra Das) to take care of the petitioner, but, the
Opposite Party No.3(Rajendra Das) is not paying the same.
In fact, no room in their ancestral house has been provided
to the petitioner. As such, they(Opposite Parties) are not
negligent in any manner in maintaining their mother, i.e.,
petitioner.
4. After hearing from both the sides, the Opposite Party
No.2 passed final order in Misc. Case no.49 of 2023 on
dated 29.02.2024(Annexure-2) and allowed the petitioner to
stay with the Opposite Party No.4(Jitendra Das), who will
maintain her(petitioner) and directed to the Opposite Party
No.3(Rajendra Das) to pay Rs.5,000/-(rupees five thousand)
per month to her(petitioner) clarifying that, none of the
Opposite Parties among Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4 shall
obstruct in staying of the petitioner in her husband’s
ancestral house and if any untoward situation is created by
the Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4(Rajendra Das and Jitendra
Das), the petitioner(mother) is at liberty to lodge an F.I.R.
against them in the local Police Station assigning the
reasons in that order vide Annexure-2 that,
Page 4 of 14
“the petitioner is the old widow mother of the Opposite
Parties and her age is 82 years and she is incapable
physically to earn something for her maintenance. She has
not been given a portion of the ancestral house of the
Opposite Parties to stay, for which, it is the duty and
responsibility of her sons, i.e., Opposite Parties(Rajendra Das
and Jitendra Das) to take her care at her old age, as she is
physically incapable.”
5. On being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order dated
29.02.2024(Annexure-2) passed in Misc. Case No.49 of
2023 by the Opposite Party No.2, one son of the petitioner,
i.e., Rajendra Das, (Opposite Party No.1 in Misc. Case No.49
of 2023) challenged the said order dated
29.02.2024(Annexure-2) passed in Misc. Case No.49 of
2023 by the Opposite Party No.2 preferring Misc. Appeal
No.12 of 2024 under Section 16 of the Act, 2007 before the
Appellate Tribunal, i.e., Collector-cum-District Magistrate,
Balasore(Opposite Party No.1) being the appellant against
the petitioner arraying her(petitioner) as Respondent No.2
and also arraying his brother Jitendra Das as Respondent
No.3 praying for setting aside that impugned order dated
Page 5 of 14
29.02.2024 (Annexure-2) passed in Misc. Case No.49 of
2023 by the Opposite Party No.2.
6. After hearing from both the sides, the Appellate
Tribunal, i.e., Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Balasore
(Opposite Party No.1 in this writ petition) set aside to the
impugned order dated 29.02.2024(Annexure-2) as per the
final order dated 07.011.2025(Annexure-4) passed in Misc.
Appeal No.12 of 2024 and remitted back the matter vide
Misc. Case No.49 of 2023 to the Opposite Party No.2 for
making a fresh enquiry and to take a final decision as per
law after giving opportunity of being heard to both the
parties.
7. To which, the petitioner challenged by filing this writ
petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India, 1950 praying for quashing the aforesaid impugned
order dated 07.11.2025(Annexure-4) passed in Misc. Appeal
No.12 of 2024 by the Opposite Party No.1 and to confirm
the order dated 29.02.2024(Anneure-2) passed in Misc.
Case No.49 of 2023 by the Opposite Party No.2 on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Opposite Party No.1 to
entertain the Misc. Appeal no.12 of 2024 under Section 16
Page 6 of 14
of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act, 2007 filed by the Opposite Party No.3(Rajendra
Das).
8. I have already heard only from the learned counsel for
the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the
Opposite Party No.1 and 2, as none appeared on behalf of
the Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4 to participate in the hearing
of this writ petition.
9. In order to assail the impugned order vide Annexure-4
passed by the Opposite Party No.l in Misc. Appeal No.12 of
2024 on the ground of incompetency of the Opposite Party
No.3(appellant in Misc. Appeal No.12 of 2024) to prefer that
appeal, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon
the following decisions:-
(i) In a case between Dinesh Bhanudas
Chandanshive vrs. State of Maharashtra and others
: reported in (2024) 1 High Court Cases(Bombay)-125,
2024 SCC OnLine Bombay-336.
(ii) In a case between K. Raju vrs. Union of India
represented by Secretary to Government and others :
reported in (2021) SCC OnLine Madras-746.
Page 7 of 14
(iii) In a case between Mamata Sarki and another
vrs. State of West Bengal and others : reported in
2020 SCC OnLine Calcutta-721.
(iv) In a case between Sri K. Lokesh vrs. The
Bangalore District Maintenance and Welfare of
parents and senior citizens appellate Tribunal and
Special Duty Commissioner-1, Bengaluru North Sub-
division, Bangaluru and others : decided in Writ
Appeal No.254 of 2024(GM-RES) dated 20.12.2024.
10. The provisions of law envisaged in Section 16 of the
Orissa Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act, 2007 only empowers any Senior Citizen or a
Parent as the case may be aggrieved by an order of a
Tribunal may within sixty days from the date of such order,
prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal.
Therefore, right of an appeal before the Appellate
Tribunal under Section 16 of the Act, 2007 is only available
to any Senior Citizen or a Parent, who is aggrieved by an
order of the Tribunal, but, such right is not available to any
other person than senior citizen or a parent like the
Opposite Party No.3 in this writ petition, as he(Opposite
Party No.3) is neither a senior citizen nor a parent.
Page 8 of 14
“The Orissa Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is a beneficial legislation. All the
beneficial legislations including the Act, 2007 must receive
liberal constructions inconsonance with the objects to be
served by it. The primary object of the Act, 2007 is to give
social justice to parents and senior citizens. Therefore, the
Tribunals and Courts should adopt purpose oriented
approach. Liberal construction is to be avoided. It should be
the duties of the Tribunals and Courts to discern the intention
of the legislation enacted for the purpose. So, the beneficial
statutes including the Act, 2007 should be given purposive
construction, which should be in the line of its object.”
11. The law relating to the non-maintainability of an
appeal under Section 16 Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 before the Appellate
Tribunal under the said Act, 2007, other than senior citizen
or parent has already been clarified in the ratio of the
following decisions:-
(i) In a case between K. Raju vrs. Union of India
represented by Secretary to Government and others
: reported in 2021 SCC Online (Madras)-746(Para
No.9) that,Page 9 of 14
When, the words used in Section 16 of the Act, 2007 are
that, any senior citizen or parent aggrieved by order of a
Tribunal may prefer an appeal, then, there is no room to
imagine that, others, then senior citizen or parent
aggrieved by order of the tribunal can prefer an appeal.
(ii) In a case between Mamata Sarki and another
vrs. State of West Bengal and others : reported in
2020 SCC Online Calcuta-721(Para Nos.16 and 21)
that,Sections 16 and 2 of the Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 provides right of
appeal before Appellate Tribunal only to senior citizen
and parent to the exclusion of children and relatives as
defined in Section 2 of the said Act, 2007.
Therefore, right of appeal under the said Act is not
available to the children and relatives.
For which, appeal filed by the children under Section 16
of the Act, 2007 challenging the order of maintenance
Tribunal is not maintainable.
(iii) In a case between K. Lokesh vrs. The Bangalore
District Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal and Special
Deputy Commissioner-1, Bengaluru North Sub-
Division, Bengaluru and others decided on dated
20.12.2024 in Writ Appeal No.254 of 2024(GM-RES)
(at Para Nos.18 and 19) that,
The language of Section 16 of the Act, 2007 is plain,
clear and unambiguous.
The said provision specifically and unequivocally grants
the right of appeal exclusively to senior citizens.
Extending this right to any other person is not
permissible.
When, the statutory provisions is ambiguous,
interpretative tools can be used to resolve the ambiguity.
If, after such an exercise and court finds ambiguity, the
interpretation should aim to fulfill the purpose of the
provisions. However, Section 16 of the Act is clear and
unambiguous, leaving no necessity to resort to
interpretation tools.
(iv) In a case between Dinesh Bhanudas
Chandanshive vrs. State of Maharashtra and others
: reported in (2024) 1 High Court Cases(Bombay)-125,
Page 10 of 14
2024 SCC OnLine Bombay-336 that, the petitioner
contended that, Section 16 of the Act, 2007 is arbitrary
and illegal, as it provides remedy of appeal only to
senior citizen or parents, but, does not provide remedy
to any other person.
Held–Section 16 of the Act, 2007, which provides the
right to appeal only to senior citizen or a parent.
(v) In a case between K. Lokesh vrs. Bangalore
District Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal and Special
Deputy Commissioner-1 and others : reported in
2025(1) CCC-15(Karnatak) that, Right of appeal of Act,
2007 is not available to any other party than senior
citizen or parent.
(vi) In a case between Ramesh Chandra Jaiswal
and another vrs. Pankaj Jaiswal : reported in
2025(3) CCC-143(Uttarakhand) that, right of appeal
under Section 16(1) of the Act, 2007 empowers only to a
senior citizen or a parent to prefer an appeal against the
order of maintenance passed by the Tribunal within the
period of limitation not to any other person, then, senior
citizen or parent.
(v) In a case between Himanshu Sekhar Sahoo vrs.
Babaji Charan Sahoo and another(Orissa) decided on
dated 17.03.2026 that, Section 16 of The Maintenance
and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007
provides right of an appeal only to a Senior Citizen or an
Parent, but, no others.
12. When, order dated 29.02.2024(Annexure-2) in Misc.
Case No.49 of 2023 was passed by the Opposite Party No.2
for the protection, security, safeguard, dignity and
sustenance of the old widow helpless petitioner and senior
citizen-cum-mother of the Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4 in
the line of the object of the Orissa Maintenance and Welfare
of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 for no other
Page 11 of 14
reason, but, only in order to provide social justice to the
petitioner and when, Rule-19 of The Orissa Maintenance
and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Rules, 2009 casts
duties upon the Tribunals under the Act, 2007 to ensure
the lives and properties of the senior citizens like the
petitioner residing within their jurisdiction and to pass
orders for their protection, by which, they will live with
security and dignity and when any right of appeal under
Section 16 of the Act, 2007 was/is not available to the
Opposite Party No.3, then at this juncture, by applying the
principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid
decisions, it is held that, the Appeal vide Misc. Appeal
No.12 of 2024 under Section 16 of the Act, 2007, which was
preferred by the Opposite Party No.3(Rajendra Das) against
her old mother, i.e., petitioner was not entertainable under
law before he Appellate Tribunal, i.e., Opposite Party No.1.
For which, the impugned order dated 07.11.2025
(Annexure-4) passed in Misc. Appeal No.12 of 2024 by the
Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Balasore (Opposite Party
No.1) is held as without jurisdiction.
Page 12 of 14
13. When, it is held above that, the impugned order dated
07.11.2025(Annexure-4) passed in Misc. Appeal No.12 of
2024 by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate,
Balasore(Opposite Party No.1) is without jurisdiction, then
at this juncture, then, the said impugned order dated
07.11.2025(Annexure-4) passed in Misc. Appeal No.12 of
2024 by the Opposite Party No.1 cannot be sustainable
under law. The same is liable to be quashed.
For which, there is justification under law for making
interference with the impugned order dated
07.11.2025(Annexure-4) passed in Misc. Appeal No.12 of
2024 by the Opposite Party No.1 through this writ petition
filed by the petitioner.
14. As such, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the
petitioner. The same must succeed.
15. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is
allowed on merit.
The impugned order dated 07.11.2025(Annexure-4)
passed in Misc. Appeal No.12 of 2024 by the Collector-cum-
Page 13 of 14
District Magistrate, Balasore (Opposite Party No.1) is
quashed.
The order dated 29.02.2024(Annexure-2) passed in
Misc. Case No.49 of 2023 by the Sub-Collector, Balasore-
cum-Presiding Officer, Maintenance and Welfare of Parents
and Senior Citizens Act, 2007(Opposite Party No.2) is
confirmed.
16. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is
disposed of finally.
( A.C. Behera )
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 30th of March, 2026/ Jagabandhu, P.A.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, CUTTACK
Date: 30-Mar-2026 19:48:46
Page 14 of 14
