SIKESWAR DEHURY Vs. KAILAS DEHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

(2.) Judgment dtd. 29/9/2018 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.500.00 per month to each of the Opposite Parties from the date of application, i.e., from 14/12/2017.

(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 Sec. 125 Cr.P.C., Opposite Party No.2 was aged about forty five years. He was also not an applicant in the petition under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. As such, he is not entitled to maintenance under Sec. 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.