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. ( 4 ) SECTION 125 of the Code deals with a prayer and an order thereon relating to maintenance of wife, children and parents. Sub-section (1) of section 125 which is relevant reads as follows: 125 (1 ). ( 4 ) SECTION 125 of the Code deals with a prayer and an order thereon relating to maintenance of wife, children and parents. Sub-section (1) of section 125 which is relevant reads as follows: 125 (1 ). If any person having sufficient means neglects or refused to maintaina) his wife, Unable to maintain herself, or b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (nor being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or d) his father or mother, liable to maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct: e) Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means. Clause (d) is stated to have application to the facts of the case. The father or mother unable to maintain himself or herself can claim maintenance from the son or daughter, as the case may be. None of the clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) relate to claim by a brother or a sister. Therefore, claim of maintenance by brothers and sister of Saudamini has no leg to stand. ( 5 ) IN the fitness, of things therefore, learned Judge, Family Court should re-hear and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. To avoid unnecessary delay, parties are directed to appear before him on 8-5-1995. He would make an effort to dispose of the proceeding itself by the end of June, 1995. In that view of the matter, direction for deduction from salary of Saudamini need not be given effect to. The Criminal Revision is disposed of. Revision disposed of Family court did not record concession properly. He would make an effort to dispose of the proceeding itself by the end of June, 1995. In that view of the matter, direction for deduction from salary of Saudamini need not be given effect to. The Criminal Revision is disposed of. Revision disposed of Family court did not record concession properly. Matter remanded with a direction- to re-hear and dispose of matter in accordance with law.