SHAKUNTALA DEWANGAN Vs. SANJAY DEWANGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Sec. 482 of CrPC has been preferred assailing the order dtd. 8/1/2016 passed by the Family Court, Raigarh in M.Cr.C. No. F-90/14, whereby the Court below in a proceeding under Sec. 125 of CrPC has rejected the claim application of the Petitioners.

(2.) Contention of the Petitioners in the present case was that the Court below has rejected the claim application on its technicalities and has not appreciated the evidences which have come on record in its proper perspective and has denied the rightful claim of maintenance which the Petitioner No.1 and her son, Petitioner No.2, deserve. It was further contended that the Court below has not properly appreciated the fact that the Petitioners did adduce the evidence of their near and dear ones so as to substantiate marriage which took place between Petitioner No.1 and Respondent and which too has not been properly appreciated by the Court below while rejecting the claim application vide the impugned order.

(3.) Ms. Rajni Soren, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, referred to the evidence of PW-2 Hetram as well as PW-3 Ku. Seema, who are uncle and sister of Petitioner No.1, who have stated before the Court below that they are aware of the fact that Petitioner No.1 was married to the Respondent and that on account of marital relationship that they had the Respondent No.2, minor Angel Dewangan, was born. Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that this part of the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 has not been properly taken note of by the Court below. According to the Counsel for the Petitioners the Court below ought to had been more liberal while considering the claim application and that it should have also discussed on the issue as to why the Petitioner No.1 would falsely implicate the Respondent No.1 seeking for maintenance and why the Petitioner No.1 would have caught hold of only the Respondent seeking for maintenance unless there would had been a relationship of husband and wife or a live-in relationship between Petitioner No.1 and Respondent. Thus, prayed for the setting aside of the impugned order and grant of maintenance or at-least the matter may be remitted back to the Court below for further appreciation of facts and passing of an order granting maintenance.