Kumutham vs Kannappan - 1998 Supreme(SC) 464

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1998 Supreme(SC) 464

1998(5) Supreme 187
Supreme Court of India
(From Madras High Court)
S.C. Agrawal, S. Saghir Ahmad and K.T. Thomas, JJ.
Kumutham & Anr. -Appellants
versus
Kannappan -Respondent
Crl. A. No. 415 of 1998
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3200 of 1997)
Decided on 6-4-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Sh. Murlidhar.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -Sections 125 & 126-Maintenance-Jurisdiction of Court-Maintenance petition filed by wife and daughter-Dismissed by Judicial Magistrate, Trichy, on ground that he has no jurisdiction to entertain petition - Erroneous as husband residing within jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrate, Trichy-Dismissal set aside and matter remitted back.
Held : The courts below have failed to take note of the provisions contained in Section 126 of the Cr.P.C. Under the said Section it is permissible for proceedings under Section 125 to be taken against a person in any District (a) where he is or (b) where he or his wife resides or (c) where be last resided with his wife, or as the case may be with the mother of the legitimate child the present case falls under clause (b) of Section 126 Cr.P.C. since appellant No. 1 was residing at Thuvakudi within the jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate. The application filed by the appellants could, therefore, be entertained by the said Magistrate and he was in error in dismissing the same on the ground that he has no jurisdiction to entertain the same.

Judgment

Special leave granted.

We have heard Shri Murlidhar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. This appeal arises out of a petition filed by the appellants under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the respondent. Appellant No. 1 is the wife and appellant No. 2 is the daughter of the respondent. After considering the matter on merits the Judicial Magistrate, No. 1 Trichy, by his order dated February 5, 1993, has dismissed the said petition on the view that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition since the respondent was not residing within his jurisdiction. The Revision Petition filed by the appellants against the said order of the Judicial Magistrate was dismissed by the IInd Additional Session Judge. Tiruchirapally Division, by judgment dated April 26, 1994. Thereafter the appellants filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the Madras High Court which has also been dismissed by the impugned judgment. In the impugned judgment the High Court has held that it will be open to the appellants to file an application before the Judicial Magistrate at Thanjavur for maintenance and that the respondent will be precluded from taking any objection on the point of jurisdiction.

It appears that the courts below have failed to take note of the provisions contained in Section 126 of the Cr.P.C. Under the said Section it is permissible for proceedings under Section 125 to be taken against a person in any District (a) where he is or (b) where he or his wife resides or (c) where be last resided with his wife, or as the case may be with the mother of the legitimate child the present case falls under clause (b) of Section 126 Cr.P.C. since appellant No. 1 was residing at Thuvakudi within the jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate. The application filed by the appellants could, therefore, be entertained by the said Magistrate and he was in error in dismissing the same on the ground that he has no jurisdiction to entertain the same.

The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned judgments of the High Court as well as those of the courts below are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Judicial Magistrate No. 7. Trichy, to deal with the matter and pass appropriate order in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

(H.K.D.) Appeal allowed.

**********

Click Here to Read the rest of this document