COURT OF AT Ag. CJ. & K J. No. 50 of 2007 APPELLANT (APPLICANT THE : (NON-APPaCANT THE 4. • Chandrashekhar . Mahiiange, S/o. Jethu Mahiiange, aged obout 36 years, R/o vlilage ^ Sirshokesto , ; SirshakeiG, P.S. BhHd -3, Tahsii Patan, &ist+. Durg (C.©.) •Smt. Saroj, W/o. Chandra Shekhar Mohiiangc, 32 ycars Motliai S/o, Chandra Shekhar Mahilanged, about 11 years Rupesh Lai S/o. Chandra Shekhar Mahiianged, csboutyear^, Both no.2. and 3 mlnor niother Smt- Saroj ali R/o. Viliage : Sirshakala, Post s Sirshakaia, Bhibl-3, Tahsj! Patan, Distt.. Durg (C.$.) at P.S. Pathon, Muna^ii, dtetrjct Biiaspur. PublJC Section 19(1) of the F^mily Court Act Present ^ Shri NK Chatterjee, for the appeilant. (Possed on 07"' September, The foiiowing orai order of the Court was by Ag. CJ. This is directed against th© 15.02.2007 the application under Section 25 of the & W'ard^ Act, 1890 (for "thi'Act'Qha^ rejected ^ the Family Court, -^ The appeiiant before u^ got married i^ith one Sar^j and they ^ere with two ^on^. According to. th@ appellant, on the pretext of iiiness of her father, Saroj ^lth chiidren to her p^rentai hou^e and thereafter, never retur-ned. In th@ cJrcurfiStances, th.e ^ppellant mov©dan Qpplication under Section 25 of the Act, mfer-aiia statlng that the appeliont looking ofter Soroj the children. Further, Saroj is unenipioyed and out of the in the morning in search of work a'nd conies in the night, therefore, not bok after the children. The of Saroj l^ that the sppeilant 90! married Ggaln with Rukmini, who already hod three children from her flret hy^band and all of them llving with the appeilant. It further dilegcd that the appelbnt i!l treating Saroj, therefore, she came to her fathers and she can look after the children better than the appeljant. Aftcr framing the is^ue^, learned famiiy Court the matter ri9htiy came to the conciusion that the appellant, who goes for work, Sawes wife Rykmini and her three chiidren at home. In circumstances, the claim of thc appei!ant rightiy rejected by the Famlly Court, after r4€cordin9the Before we part, i^e ^ould like to mentlon that there is nothing on record to that the appeilant an of Steel Piant, which is a Unlt of Steel Authorlty of Indio Limited, covered by Article 12 of the Constltution of Zndia ha^ got married to Rukniini with due permisslon of the appointing authority. Hoi^ever, there to be a ilttle In the judgmcnt, (which is of no consequence) on It observed by the Court concerned that thesult has dlsmi^ed ^lth co^ts ond on-the other hand it directed that the parties shall thelr -JS costs, As such, iet the porties their costs. The mi^tcke is of no consequences, After the orders passed/ i^@ to know thot there is m filing the We caiied upon the iearned ^hy h-s had not indicated thot.there is a deSoy in fillng the appcai. Learned responded, it is due to over sight ond there is a of 90 days. ^-^< Ir^ The record other^ise, which shoi^s that there i^ a delay of 143 days, and the ^ame has not ©xplained. Therefore, on this count, the fdls. In the result, the appeai is dismls^ed. Sd/- Ag. Chief Justice Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge