*** vs Babaji Charan Sahoo & Another
2026 Latest Caselaw 2531 Ori

Orissa High Court

*** vs Babaji Charan Sahoo & Another on 17 March, 2026

                 ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

  Applications under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.


                     WP(C) No.23193 of 2025

                                 ***

Himanshu Sekhar Sahoo

... Petitioner.

-VERSUS-

     Babaji Charan Sahoo & Another
                                       ...          Opposite Parties.

Counsel appeared for the parties:

For the Petitioner           : Mr. B. Baug, Senior Advocate
                                 Assisted by Mr. M.R. Baug, Adv.
For the Opposite Parties     :   Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel.
                                 (For the State Opp. Party No.2)
                                 Mr. K. Badhei, Adv.
                                 (For the Opp. Party No.1)


                        WP(C) No.24893 of 2025
     Babaji Charan Sahu

                                       ...                  Petitioner.

                                  -VERSUS-

Sub-Collector-cum -Presiding Officer, Sub-Divisional Senior Citizen's Tribunal, Bhubaneswar & Others ... Opposite Parties.

Counsel appeared for the parties:

For the Petitioner : Mr. K. Badhei, Adv.

For the Opposite Parties : Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel.

(For the State Opp. Party No.1) Mr. B. Baug, Senior Advocate Assisted by Mr. M.R. Baug, Adv.

(For the Opp. Party No.4)

P R E S E N T:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

Date of Hearing : 25.02.2026 :: Date of Judgment : 17.03.2026

J UD G M E N T S

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--

1. Since both these Writ Petitions have arisen out of same

impugned order vide Order dated 07.08.2025 passed in Misc.

Case Registration No.02/2025 by the Sub-Collector,

Bhubaneswar-Cum-Presiding Officer, Sub-Divisional Tribunal,

Bhubanswar for MWPSC Act, 2007, then, both the Writ

Petitions are taken up together analogously for their final

disposal through this common Judgment.

When WP(C) No.23193 of 2025 has been filed by the Son

(Himanshu Sekhar Sahu) against his father (Babaji Charan

Sahu), the WPC No.24893 of 2025 has been filed by the father

(Babaji Charan Sahu) against his son (Himanshu Sekhar

Sahoo).

2. The factual backgrounds of both the Writ Petitions,

which prompted the petitioners for filing the same are that,

Babaji Charan Sahu being the senior citizen as well as an old

father of Himanshu Sekhar Sahu, filed a petition vide Misc.

Case Registration No.02/2025 before the Sub-Collector,

Bhubaneswar-Cum-Presiding Officer, Sub-Divisional Tribunal,

Bhubanswar for MWPSC Act, 2007 on dated 09.02.2025

against his son-Himanshu Sekhar Sahu praying for protection

of his life and property stating that, he is a retired

Government Employee as well as a pension holder. His age is

84 years. He was staying at village Baramunda in his father's

house with his 3 sons. Some years before, his elder son and

middle son both left the said house at Baramunda and they

are staying with their respective families separately. So, he

(Babaji Charan Sahu) was staying with his youngest son

(Himanshu Sekhar Sahu) in that house at Baramunda, but,

he was forced by his son Himanshu Sekhar Sahu to leave his

parental house at Baramunda. For which, he was compelled

to leave that house and the said house at Baramunda was

occupied by his son Himanshu Sekhar Sahu. Therefore, he

stayed with his eldest son (Chandra Sekhar Sahu) at Siripur,

Bhubaneswar. At present, he is staying with is middle son

Sasanka Sekhar Sahu at Pokhariput, Bhubaneswar. As such,

Babaji Charan Sahoo has alleged allegations of tortures and

humiliation on him by his son Himanshu Sekhar Sahu. He

(father-Babaji Charan Sahoo) has purchased some lands in

the name of his son-Himanshu Sekhar Sahu in Mouza-

Satyabhamapur, Lenkudi, Alarpur, Paikerapur and

Baramunda. For which, he (Babaji Charan Sahoo) prayed for

revocation of the said properties, those were purchased by

him in the name of his son (Himanshu Sekhar Sahoo) to his

name.

After taking the Petition and the report of the IIC, Airport

PS, regarding the allegation of tortures and humiliations

alleged by him (Babaji Charan Sahoo) against his son

Himanshu Sekhar Sahoo as well as the pendency of an Appeal

Case No.188/2024 before the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar

into account, the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar-Cum-Presiding

Officer, Sub-Divisional Tribunal, Bhubanswar for MWPSC Act,

2007 passed the final impugned order in Misc. Case

Registration No.02/2025 on dated 07.08.2025 as follows:

i. The father (Babaji Charan Sahoo) and the Opp. Party

(Himanshu Sekhar Sahoo) should stay peacefully at

their residence.

ii. The Opp. Party-Son (Himanshu Sekhar Sahoo)

should stop abusing, threatening and show immense

respect to the petitioner-father.

iii. The Opp. Party-Son (Himanshu Sekhar Sahoo)

should vacate ground floor of the house at

Baramunda village for safe living of the petitioner-

father (Babaji Charan Sahoo) and handover the

same to petitioner-father (Babaji Charan Sahoo) by

22.08.2025 positively & report compliance.

iv. The property dispute matter is purely civil in nature

and an appeal case has been filed in the court of

Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar vide No.188/2024,

which is subjudice.

3. On being aggrieved with the above impugned order dated

07.08.2025 passed in Misc. Case Registration No.02/2025 by

the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar-Cum-Presiding Officer, Sub-

Divisional Tribunal, Bhubanswar for MWPSC Act, 2007, the

son-Himanshu Sekhar Sahoo challenged the same by filing

WPC No.23193 of 2025 praying for quashing that impugned

order dated 07.08.2025.

Likewise, on being partly dissatisfied with the said

impugned order dated 07.08.2025 passed in Misc. Case

Registration No.02/2025, the father-Babaji Charan Sahoo

challenged the same by filing WPC No.24893 of 2025.

4. I have already heard from the learned Senior Counsel for

the Son-Himanshu Sekhar Sahoo, learned counsel for the

father-Babaji Charan Sahoo and the learned Standing

Counsel for the State.

5. Basing upon the petition of the father (Babaji Charan

Sahoo), the impugned order dated 07.08.2025 passed in Misc.

Case Registration No.2/2025 by the Sub-Collector,

Bhubaneswar-Cum-Presiding Officer, Sub-Divisional Tribunal,

Bhubanswar for MWPSC Act, 2007, the grounds taken by the

parties in their respective Writ Petitions and the rival

submissions of the learned counsels of both the sides, the

crux of these Writ Petitions is that,

Whether the impugned order dated 07.08.2025 allowing

in part to the Misc. Case Registration No.02/2025 passed by

the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar-Cum-Presiding Officer, Sub-

Divisional Tribunal, Bhubanswar for MWPSC Act, 2007

directing the son-Himanshu Sekhar Sahoo to vacate the ground

floor of the house situated at Baramunda for safe living of the

father-Babaji Charan Sahoo and to hand over that ground floor

to the father refusing to revoke the properties in the name of the

son-Himanshu Sekhar Sahoo to the name of the father-Babaji

Charan Sahoo due to the pendency of Appeal Case

No.188/2024 before the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar is

sustainable under law?

6. During the Course of hearing, the learned counsel for the

petitioner (Babaji Charan Sahoo) in WP(C) No.24893 of 2025

relied upon the following decisions:

i. Kamalakanta Mishra Vs. Addl. Collector and Others reported in 2025 MANU/SCOR/72441/2025

ii. Sheeja Vs. Maintenance Appellate Tribunal/District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram and Others reported in 2018 (4) KLT. iii. Urmila Dixit Vrs. Sunil Sharan Dixit reported in 2025 INSC 20.

iv. Sundhari Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer:WPC

7. The Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar being the Tribunal

under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior

Citizens Act, 2007 has passed the impugned order dated

07.08.2025 in Misc. Case Registration No.02/2025 for the

protection, security and dignity of the senior citizen-Babaji

Charan Sahoo.

It is the settled propositions of law that, "The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the Rules thereof are the beneficial legislations. The beneficial statutes and legislations must receive liberal constructions in consonance with the objects to be served by it. The primary object of the said Act, 2007 is to give social justice to parents and senior citizens. Therefore, Court should adopt purpose oriented approach. Literal construction is to be avoided. It should be the duty of the Tribunals and Courts to discern the intention of the legislation enacted for the purpose. So, beneficial statutes should be given purposive construction, which should be in the line of its object."

8. The intention of the legislature in enacting

The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens

Act, 2007 and its nature and manner of interpretations to be

made by the Tribunal and Courts has already been clarified in

the ratio of the following decisions:

I. In a case between Philomina Vs. The Appellate Tribunal (Constituted under the Provisions of The Maintenance & Welfare of Parents and Citizens Act), Thiruvananthapuram reported in 2021 (2) Civ.C.C. 806 (Kerala) Para No.12 that, the Provisions of The Maintenance & Welfare of Parents and Citizens Act, 2007 is to give social justice to parents and senior citizens.

II.In a case between Mrs. Rajani B. Somkuwar Vs. Ms. Sarita Somkuwar and Another reported in 2020 (2) CCC 100 (Bombay) that, if children cannot take care of their parents and allow them to live in peace, they atleast ought not to make their life a living hell. (Para No.5) III. In a case between Urmila Dixit Vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit & Others reported in 2025 (3) Civ.L.J. 341 (SC) that, Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and rules thereof being beneficial statutes, the same must receive liberal construction in consonance with objects to be served by it. Court should adopt purpose oriented approach. Literal construction be avoided. It is the duty of the Court to discern intention of Legislature while enacting it. Beneficial statutes should be given purposive construction which should be in line with its object.

9. Here in this matter at hand, when the impugned order

dated 07.08.2025 passed in Misc. Case Registration No.02 of

2025 as well as the order sheet dated 21.01.2026 in WPC

No.24893 of 2025 prepared on the basis of the submissions of

the learned counsels of both the sides as well as the parties of

both the sides i.e. father and son in person are going to show

that,

"there is a two storied Pucca building on the ancestral properties of the parties at Village-Baramunda under Khata No.487, Plot No.760 in Mouza-Bhubaneswar Town, Unit No.19, Baramunda. In the 1st Floor thereof, Himanshu Sekhar Sahoo with his wife and children is residing. In the ground floor thereof, old father-Babaji Charan Sahoo is eagerly interested to stay in order to spend the rest period of his life in his parental properties."

10. When the present age of the father Babaji Charan Sahoo

is 86 years and he is extremely old and his wife has expired

and when the primary object of The Maintenance and Welfare

of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is to give social

justice to parents and senior citizens and when it is the duty

of the tribunals and Courts under the Act, 2007 to discern the

above intention of the legislature and when Rule 19 of the

Orissa Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules,

2009 provides that, the orders under the Act, 2007 are to be

passed, by which, the Senior Citizens shall be able to live with

security and dignity, and when the impugned order dated

07.08.2025 in Misc. Case Registration No.02/2025 has been

passed by the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar-Cum-Presiding

Officer, Sub-Divisional Tribunal, Bhubanswar for MWPSC Act,

2007 in order to enable the senior citizen Babaji Charan

Sahoo, (who is aged about 86 years) to live in his parental

house with security and dignity in order to achieve the noble

object of the benevolent/legislation i.e., The Maintenance and

Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the

Rules thereof, then, at this juncture, by applying the

principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the above decisions

to these matters at hand, I find no justification for making any

interference with the impugned order dated 07.08.2025

passed in Misc. Case Registration No.02/2025 by the Sub-

Collector, Bhubaneswar-Cum-Presiding Officer, Sub-

Divisional Tribunal, Bhubanswar for MWPSC Act, 2007

through the Writ Petition filed by the Son-Himanshu Sekhar

Sahoo. For which, there is no merit in his WPC No.23193 of

2025. The same must fail.

11. So far as WPC No.24893 of 2025 filed by the Senior

Citizen i.e. father-Babaji Charan Sahoo is concerned,

Section 16 of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents

and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 provides a statutory appellate

forum to the senior citizen like Babaji Charan Sahu to

challenge the impugned order passed by Sub-Collector.

When an efficacious statutory appellate forum was

available to the father-cum-senior citizen Babaji Charan

Sahoo to challenge the partly allowed impugned order, then,

the WPC No.24893/2025 filed by him (Babaji Charan Sahoo),

bypassing the statutory appellate forum cannot be

entertainable under law.

For which, the Writ Petition filed by the father-Babaji

Charan Sahoo is liable to be dismissed.

12. As per the discussions and observations made above,

both the writ petitions vide WPC Nos.23193 and 24893 of

2025 filed by the Son and Father i.e. Himanshu Sekhar Sahoo

and Babaji Charan Sahoo respectively are liable to be

dismissed.

13. In result, both the writ petitions filed by the respective

parties against each other are dismissed on contest.

14. As such, both the writ petitions are disposed of finally.

(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 17 .03. 2026// Rati Ranjan Nayak Sr. Stenographer