Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SASHIKANTA MISHRA
Jagabandhu Rout – Appellant
Versus
Suresh Kumar Rout – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
1. Since the same order passed by the Collector, Cuttack is impugned in both the Writ Petitions, both were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. This a dispute between the parents on one hand and their son on the other. W.P.(C) No.1519/2024 has been preferred by the parents while the other Writ Petition (W.P.(C) No.31945/2024) has been preferred by their eldest son questioning the correctness of order dtd.27.9.2023 passed by the Collector, Cuttack in Maintenance(A) No.39/2022.
Case of the parents
3. They claim that their elder son has not been coming to their house nor taking care of them since the past four years and is residing at Angul with his wife. The parents are unable to take care of themselves. As such, they filed a case
The court affirmed the limited scope of certiorari jurisdiction, focusing on whether tribunals overstepped legal boundaries, while also emphasizing the need to balance maintenance obligations between....
The executing court must execute final orders under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, without alteration.
Children are legally required to maintain their parents irrespective of property distribution; disputes over property do not absolve this financial obligation.
The court clarified the interpretation of Section 9(2) of the Senior Citizens Act, holding that the maximum maintenance allowance of Rs.10,000/- applied to each senior citizen, resulting in a total a....
The court upheld the maintenance order under the Act, reinforcing the financial obligations of children to their elderly parents.
The duty of a son to care for his old aged parents, regardless of land transfers, and the importance of providing maintenance to senior citizens under the 2007 Act.
Maintenance –Where senior citizen is not able to maintain himself or herself and children or relatives, as case may be, neglect or refuse to maintain them, Tribunal is empowered to order them to make....
Point of law: Legislative intent purpose behind the enactment of the Act of 2007 while laying out the procedure to be followed by a Maintenance Tribunal under the Act of 2007.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article