A.Pasayat, J. - (1.)In an unfortunate litigation between the mother on one hand, and daughter on the other hand, minor children of mother have also been impleaded. A petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the Code) was filed by mother Pramila Dibya, and her minor children claiming maintenance from PramilaTs daughter Saudamini. According to claimants, they were unable to maintain themselves and Saudamini was legally obliged to maintain them. The matter was taken up by learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack on 25-7-1994 and was disposed of with certain directions. He observed that order was passed on consent of parties.
(2.)Learned counsel for Saudamini has submitted that there was in fact no consent, and no adjudication at all was done and with some abrupt conclusions, learned Judge, Family Court has disposed of the matter. It is submitted that claim by brothers and sister was not entertain able. Learned counsel for claimants submitted that learned Judge, Family Court has disposed of the matter keeping in view the welfare of parties concerned, and too technical views should not be adopted in such matters.
(3.)When it was pointed out to learned counsel for petitioner that where a stand is taken about absence of concession as recorded in the impugned order, proper course is to move the Court which recorded such concession, it was submitted by him that Presiding Officer has been transferred in the meantime, and any motion as regards absence of concession would be a futile exercise. The plea in the peculiar circumstances appears to be sound. Additionally, I find that learned Judge, Family Court has not decided the question of entitlement of brothers and sister of Saudamini to get maintenance from her in accordance with law.