The Allahabad High Court while rejecting an application observed that the Court by invoking inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot become a tool to frustrate the very object of Section 125 Cr.P.C merely on objection of jurisdiction.
A Single Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery passed this order while hearing an application under section 482 filed by Majid Khan.
In the case, Opposite Party No 2, i.e, complainant, has filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C on 30.07.2021 declaring herself to be resident of District Bareilly.
In case applicant appeared and filed an objection that complaint is resident of Delhi and she has filed an application under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 stating that she was a resident of Delhi and during proceeding thereof the address was verified also. Applicant has challenged the maintainability of application so filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C on ground of jurisdiction.
Complainant has filed a reply to aforesaid objection mentioning specifically that her permanent address where her parents reside is at Bareilly and only for the purpose of job she stayed at Delhi and she has frequent visits to her permanent address at Bareilly.
Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly considered the application of complainant and objection of applicant and passed the order dated 21.01.2023 whereby objection with regard to jurisdiction was rejected.
Mohammad Fateh, counsel for applicant, has placed reliance on a judgment passed by High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in Nirman Sagar vs Smt Monika Sagar Chaudhari and another, decided on 01.04.2022 that in terms of Section 126 Cr.P.C the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C can be initiated in any district where he or his wife resides or where he last resided with her wife or as the case may be with the mother of the illegitimate child and further held that word ‘reside’ would not include a casual stay or a flying visit to a particular place.
Above submissions are vehemently opposed by Mohd Zubair, counsel appearing for Opposite Party No 2 and he placed reliance on Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal (supra) that since provisions of Section 125 CrPC are of welfare legislation, therefore, the issue of jurisdiction be also considered in a liberal manner.
On merit, counsel for Opposite Party No 2 submitted that the Trial Court has considered that Bareilly is permanent residence of complainant where she is frequently visiting and only for the purpose of job she stays at Delhi though he has not disputed that an application under Section 12 of Act, 2005 was filed at Delhi.
The Court observed that,
Aforesaid fact with regard to filing of application under Section 12 of Act, 2005 at Delhi as well as the complainant residing at Delhi for the purpose of job, is not under dispute. It is also not under much dispute that the complainant’s parents are permanent residents of Bareilly. Marriage was also solemnized at Bareilly. Therefore, it cannot be much disputed that the complainant is visiting her permanent residence frequently. As such, it cannot be said that a visit to Bareilly was a casual stay or a flying visit. Permanent address of complainant at Bareilly would fall within the contour of ‘reside’.
The other argument of counsel for applicant is that since application under Section 12 of Act, 2005 was filed by complainant at Delhi, therefore, she is now not permitted to file any application at Bareilly. However, if this argument is accepted, the very purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C, which is already referred to as welfare legislation, would be frustrated. The Court cannot ignore that it is not much disputed that complainant’s parents are permanent residents of Bareilly and she has frequent visit there at.
“The facts of the case are distinguishable from the facts of judgment cited by the counsel for applicant in Nirman Sagar (supra). Section 126 Cr.P.C provides that proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C may be taken against any person in any district where he is residing or where he or his wife resides. Therefore, if the wife resides at Bareilly, she can file a complaint under Section 125 Cr.P.C at Bareilly also. It is upto the complainant to choose the place of jurisdiction and in the case complainant has chosen to file complaint at Bareilly.
In aforesaid circumstances, I do not find that there is any ground to interfere with impugned order whereby objection with regard to jurisdiction was rejected,” the Court further observed while rejecting the application.
The post Allahabad High Court rejects plea to dismiss maintenance case over jurisdiction appeared first on India Legal.