Orissa High Court
Sikeswar Dehury vs Kailas Dehury And Another .... Opp. ... on 17 July, 2023
Author: K.R. Mohapatra
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 18-Jul-2023 13:00:18 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM No. 261 OF 2018
Sikeswar Dehury .... Petitioner
Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
Kailas Dehury and another .... Opp. Parties
None
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 17.07.2023
4. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Judgment dated 29th September, 2018 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Kandhamal, Phulbani in C.R.P. No.97 of 2017 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.500/- per month to each of the Opposite Parties from the date of application, i.e., from 14th December, 2017.
3. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that there is no marital relationship between the Petitioner and Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.2 is not his son. Further at the time of filing of the application under Section125 Cr.P.C., Opposite Party No.2 was aged about forty five years. He was also not an applicant in the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. As such, he is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. Although evidence has been led to the effect that there was no marriage between the Petitioner and Opposite Party No.1, but learned Judge, Family Court disbelieving the statement of witnesses examined on behalf of the Petitioner, directed to pay the maintenance as above. Hence, this RPFAM has been filed.
Page 1 of 2// 2 // Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 18-Jul-2023 13:00:18 4. Although Opposite Party No.1 is represented through learned counsel, but none appears on her behalf at the time of call.
5. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioner, this Court finds that Opposite Party No.2 was forty five years old at the time of filing of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. Hence, he is not entitled to maintenance in view of the provision under Section 125 (1)(b) and (c) Cr.P.C.. It , however, appears that there are material on record on the basis of which learned Judge, Family Court arrived at a conclusion that Opposite Party No.1 is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. Since the findings arrived at by learned Judge, Family Court in respect of Opposite Party No.1 are based on material on record, I am not inclined to interfere with the same.
6. However, this Court while setting aside the impugned order directing the Petitioner to pay the maintenance to Opposite Party No.2, namely, Ekamra Dehury, confirms the order of maintenance in respect of Opposite Party No.1.
7. Accordingly, this RPFAM is disposed of with an observation that the Petitioner, if so advised, may file an application for variation of the order of maintenance before learned Judge, Family Court, Kandhamal, Phulbani, if there is any change in circumstances.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
ms Judge
Page 2 of 2