IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No.656 of 2026 Surendranath Satapathy & another …. Petitioners Mr. S.K. Rath, Advocate -Versus- State of Orissa & others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Behera, AGA CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 22.07.2026 04. 1. Recorded the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Instant CRLMP is filed by the petitioners for a direction to opposite party Nos.3 to 5 to take action on the complaint made by them as per Annexure-3 in accordance with Orissa Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens Act & Rules, 2009 on the grounds stated with such other consequential orders including eviction of opposite party No.6 from their residential house in the interest of justice. 3. This Court by order dated 24th June, 2026 had directed opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 to file affidavits. In response to the said order, the IIC of the concerned P.S. filed the affidavit instead and the same is at Flag-B. Recorded the submission of Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioners. An objection to the IIC of Khandapada P.S., namely, opposite party No.5 is filed today and taken on record. The further submission is that petitioner No.2 suffers from disability. A copy of the Disability Certificate issued to opposite party No.2 is annexed to the objection received from the petitioners and is also taken on record. In the affidavit of opposite party No.5, it has been stated that the petitioners and opposite party No.6 are not pulling on well. It is also stated therein that son of the petitioners died sometime back and after his death, opposite party No.6 is staying with them. The other events followed and the reason behind a strained relationship between the parties is also narrated in the said affidavit. 4. Referring to the complaint as at Annexure-3, it is submitted by Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioners that no action has been taken by opposite party No.3. Learned counsel for the State refers to the affidavit of opposite party No.5 and submits that the complaint should have been addressed to opposite party No.3 but instead a copy of such complaint is sent to him by Post. Mr. Rath, learned counsel, in response to the above, submits that the complaint was sent by Post and receipt of the same is duly acknowledged. The postal receipts on record are referred to by Mr. Rath, learned counsel in proof of the complaint having been received by opposite party No.3. Considering the earlier direction by order dated 24th June, 2026 and filing of an affidavit by opposite party No.5 and not opposite party Nos.3 & 4, this Court is of the view that a complaint is required to be submitted to opposite party No.3 directly in terms of the Act and Rules even though a copy of the complaint i.e. Annexure-3 is sent to opposite party No.3. In other words, this Court is inclined to direct the petitioners to file a fresh complaint within ten days from today for an action in accordance with law as such a course of action would serve the purpose and meet the ends of justice. 5. Accordingly, it is ordered. 6. In the result, the CRLMP stands disposed of granting the liberty to the petitioners to file a complaint before opposite party No.3 within next ten days and upon receiving the same, it shall be dealt with at the earliest in accordance with law. 7. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules. 8. Copy of the order be handed over to learned counsel for the State for its onward intimation to opposite party No.3 and for early compliance. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge kabita