Orissa High Court
Sikeswar Dehury vs Kailas Dehury And Another on 17 July, 2023
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.
// 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
