Right To Appeal Under Senior Citizens Act Belongs Exclusively To Parents, Children Cannot File Appeal: Orissa High Court

"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... such right is not available to any other person." Orissa High Court, in a significant ruling dated March 30, 2026, held that children and relatives have no statutory right to challenge a maintenance order under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

A single-judge bench of Justice A.C. Behera observed that the legislation is inherently beneficial in nature, and the appellate remedy provided within the statute is exclusively reserved for aggrieved parents and senior citizens, expressly barring appeals by their children.

An 83-year-old widow approached the Sub-Collector, Balasore, seeking maintenance from her two sons under Section 7 of the Act after being denied a room in her ancestral home. The Sub-Collector directed one son to provide her with shelter and the other to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000. Aggrieved by this directive, the son directed to pay maintenance preferred an appeal before the Collector, who subsequently set aside the initial order and remanded the matter for fresh inquiry. The elderly mother then filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution before the High Court, challenging the Collector's jurisdiction to entertain her son's appeal.

The primary question before the court was whether a son, who is neither a senior citizen nor a parent, possesses the statutory locus standi to prefer an appeal under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The court was also called upon to determine whether the appellate order passed by the Collector, acting upon an appeal instituted by the son, was legally sustainable or completely vitiated by a lack of jurisdiction.

The court initiated its analysis by examining the fundamental objective of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, characterising it as a welfare statute designed to secure social justice for the elderly. Justice Behera emphasised that courts and tribunals must adopt a purpose-oriented approach when interpreting such statutes to ensure the legislative intent is not defeated by technicalities. The bench observed that all beneficial legislations must receive a liberal construction that aligns strictly with the primary objective of protecting vulnerable parents rather than accommodating the grievances of their children.

"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."

Delving into the statutory framework, the court scrutinised Section 16 of the Act, which outlines the procedure for appeals against the orders of the maintenance tribunal. The bench categorically ruled that the statutory language is plain and leaves no room for broadening the scope of prospective appellants through judicial interpretation. The court noted that the provision consciously restricts the appellate remedy to ensure that senior citizens are not dragged into protracted, draining litigation by their aggrieved children, thereby preserving the protective nature of the initial maintenance orders.

"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."

To fortify its interpretation, the High Court relied upon a catena of consistent judgments from various constitutional courts across the country. The bench cited decisions including the Madras High Court in K. Raju v. Union of India, the Calcutta High Court in Mamata Sarki v. State of West Bengal, the Bombay High Court in Dinesh Bhanudas Chandanshive v. State of Maharashtra, and the Uttarakhand High Court in Ramesh Chandra Jaiswal v. Pankaj Jaiswal. Relying particularly on the Karnataka High Court's exposition in K. Lokesh v. Bangalore District Maintenance Appellate Tribunal, Justice Behera reiterated that when a statutory provision is clear and unambiguous, interpretative tools are unnecessary, and courts must enforce the plain text. The bench adopted the established legal position that excluding children from the appellate mechanism is a deliberate and valid legislative choice.

"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."

Applying these settled legal principles to the factual matrix, the court evaluated the validity of the appellate order passed by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Balasore. Since the appeal was filed by the son, who fundamentally lacked the statutory competence to do so, the court concluded that the Appellate Tribunal had severely erred in entertaining the plea. The bench stressed that Rule 19 of the Orissa Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009, casts a mandatory duty upon tribunals to ensure the security and dignity of the elderly, a mandate that was actively undermined when the Collector entertained an incompetent appeal against the octogenarian mother.

"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 the Appellate Tribunal... For which, the impugned order... is held as without jurisdiction."

Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the appellate order passed by the Collector. The original maintenance order passed by the Sub-Collector, which directed the sons to provide immediate shelter and financial sustenance to their mother, was formally restored and confirmed.

Date of Decision: 30 March 2026