83-year-old widow facing homelessness wins legal battle after Orissa High Court slams son’s ‘non-maintainable’ appeal
Orissa High Court restores tribunal relief to 83-year-old widow, rules son cannot appeal under Senior Citizens Act, ensures protection, dignity and maintenance rights.
Orissa High Court news: Championing the rights of senior citizens, the Orissa High Court has restored an order in favour of an 83-year-old widow who was on the verge of homelessness after her son won against the order directing him to provide for her mother’s upkeep.
Justice Ananda Chandra Behera held that the son’s appeal against the tribunal’s order was non-maintainable under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
In the process of delivering justice to the Octagenarian, the judge set aside the appellate body’s order and restored the Maintenance Tribunal’s relief, noting that it was passed for her “protection, security, safeguard, dignity”.
“Right of an appeal before the appellate tribunal under Section 16 of the Act, 2007 is only available to any Senior Citizen (sic) or a Parent, who is aggrieved by an order of the tribunal, but such right is not available to any other person than a senior citizen or a parent,” the March 30 order noted.
The order passed by the appellate tribunal on November 7, 2025, is liable to be quashed, the Orissa High Court said.
It ensures speedy resolution and gives aggrieved elderly persons a mechanism to challenge inadequate or unfair maintenance orders.
Son’s appeal not maintainable: Court
The act ensures that the senior citizens can live with security and dignity.
The provisions of law envisaged in Section 16 of the Orissa Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, only empower any senior citizen or a parent to file an appeal.
The law relating to the non-maintainability of an appeal before the appellate tribunal under the said Act, 2007, other than a senior citizen or a parent, has already been clarified in precedents.
The Orissa Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009, cast duties upon the tribunals under the Act, 2007, to ensure the lives and properties of the senior citizens, like the petitioner, are protected.
The son who claimed the appeal under Section 16 of the Act, 2007, is not maintainable.
The order passed by the appellate tribunal on November 7, 2025, is liable to be quashed.
No room for old widow mother
The petitioner, an 83-year-old widow, was a helpless and senior citizen as well as a mother of two sons.
Her one son was a vegetable seller, and her other son was a home guard, and they both are married.
Her sons divided her husband’s ancestral house between them without providing any room therein for the petitioner to stay.
She had no income of her own, and due to her extreme old age, she was not able to maintain herself.
When her sons did not provide her with anything for her sustenance and medical expenses, then, without getting any way, she filed a case before the Sub-Collector, Balasore-cum-Presiding Officer, under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
Under Section 7 of the said Act, 2007, she prayed for directing her sons to provide her maintenance and financial assistance for her medical treatments and expenditures.
To which, her two sons objected by filing an objection stating that there was an amicable settlement between them to provide maintenance, and there was no negligence on their part.
They were residing in their ancestral residential house in a separate mess.
One son was staying with his family in his government quarter.
There was a mutual understanding between them on November 11, 2021, before the District Mediation Centre, Balasore, under DLSA, Balasore, that he shall pay Rs 1,000 per month to his brother to take care of the petitioner, but the son didn’t pay.
No room in their ancestral house has been provided to the petitioner.
Tribunal’s relief
The tribunal passed a final order and allowed the petitioner to stay with one of the sons, who will maintain her and directed the other son to pay Rs 5,000 per month to the petitioner.
The tribunal clarified that none of the sons shall obstruct the petitioner’s stay in her husband’s ancestral house, and if any untoward situation is created by them, the mother was given liberty to lodge an FIR against them in the local Police Station.
Relief set aside
Being dissatisfied with the order passed on February 29, 2024, by the maintenance tribunal, one of the sons challenged it before the appellate tribunal.
He sought to set aside the order passed by the maintenance tribunal.
The appellate tribunal set aside the aforementioned order and remitted the matter for making a fresh enquiry and to take a final decision as per law after giving an opportunity of being heard to both parties through an order dated November 7, 2025.
Somya Panwar works with the Legal Desk at The Indian Express, where she covers the various High Courts across the country and the Supreme Court of India. Her writing is driven by a deep interest in how law influences society, particularly in areas of gender, feminism, and women’s rights.
She is especially drawn to stories that examine questions of equality, autonomy, and social justice through the lens of the courts. Her work aims to make complex legal developments accessible, contextual, and relevant to everyday readers, with a focus on explaining what court decisions mean beyond legal jargon and how they shape public life.
Alongside reporting, she manages the social media presence for Indian Express Legal, where she designs and curates posts using her understanding of digital trends, audience behaviour, and visual communication. Combining legal insight with strategic content design, she works on building engagement and expanding the desk’s digital reach.
Somya holds a B.A. LL.B and a Master’s degree in Journalism. Before moving fully into media, she gained experience in litigation and briefly worked in corporate, giving her reporting a strong foundation. ... Read More
The order passed by the appellate tribunal on November 7, 2025, is liable to be quashed, the Orissa High Court said.
