Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, J.

Leave granted.

1. The present case reflects a sad state of affairs, as it involves a fight between the father and his sons. While the appellant is son of respondent No.2 (who is the petitioner claiming maintenance in terms of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code'), the other respondents are appellant's step brothers.

2. The factual background projected by the parties need not be noted in detail as the pristine question involved is one of law relating to jurisdiction in terms of Section 126 of the Code where an application can be filed. The Application was filed by the respondent No.2 - father in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Siwan. The appellant filed an application for transfer of the case from Siwan to Patna alleging that an influential politician was behind the litigation, and he would not get justice if the case is tried at Siwan as he could not even arrange a lawyer to represent him. According to him, the Court at Siwan has no jurisdiction to entertain the application because the appellant lives in Patna and is practising as a lawyer. The Patna High Court rejected the application for transfer primarily on