KRISHNA SARAN SHRIVASTAV, J.

( 1 ) OUR learned Sister Ms. S. V. Maruthi J, has referred this case for reconsideration by a larger Bench the law laid down in the case of golla Ramana Rao v. Golla Chandramma and one another Criminal Revision Case no. 390 of 1977, decided on 17-2-1978 that, the application of the parents for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal procedure has to be decided by the Magistrate within whose jurisdiction their children reside.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this revision, in brief, are that the petitioners, who are the parents of the 1st respondent, had filed an application for maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 against the 1st respondent, who was working in TISCO at Tatanagar at the relevant time, in M. C. No. 2/1990 on the file of the judicial Magistrate of I Class, Ichapuram. The magistrate allowed the application on merits on 27-1-1994 granting maintenance to them. The respondents carried the matter to the High Court in Criminal R. C. No. 77/1994 questioning the Territorial jurisdiction of the magistrate. A learned single Judge of this court set aside the order granting maintenance and remanded the case to the Magistrate with a direction to frame an issue regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Court as also with regard to the income of the petitioners from the Joint Hindu Family property. The Magistrate after again recording the evidence, found that the petitioners had no income from the Joint Hindu Family property and the 1st respondent was not the resident of Ichapuram and, therefore, it has got no territorial jurisdiction to try the case and ordered the application to be returned to the petitioners to be presented before the proper Court.

( 3 ) FEELING aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioners have preferred revision in crl. R. C. No. 589/1995. In the opinion of the learned single Judge, who heard the revision petition,, the view of the Division Bench in the case of Golla Ramana Rao (supra) that the court within whose jurisdiction the son resides is competent to decide the dispute, requires re-consideration, because, the provisions of Section 177 of the Code of Criminal procedure were not taken into consideration in that case, though it has a bearing on the question of jurisdiction to grant maintenance.

( 4 ) IT is too well settled that the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of criminal Procedure are in the nature of Civil proceedings, because, only provision for maintenance has been made to be provided to helpless wives, children and parents, but the persons, on whom a duty has been cast to pay maintenance allowance, are not accused persons and their act of negligence or refusal to maintain does not amount to an offence while Section 177 of the Code of Criminal procedure governs all criminal trials in relation to offences committed by accused persons and, therefore, the provisions of Section 177 of the code of Criminal Procedure, in our view, have no bearing on the question of jurisdiction of the Court to grant maintenance.

( 5 ) RELYING on the case of Mst. Jagir Kaur and another v. Jaswant Singh, AIR 1963 (SC) 1521, a Division Bench of this court, in the case of Golla Ramana Rao (supra), has held that the words where he is occurring in Section 126 (1) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure refer only to the husband or the person against whom proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of criminal Procedure are to be taken and the meaning of the words where he resides should be considered from the point of view of the purpose of the statute which would be better served if the word resides is understood to include temporary residence. The test on the question of residence is whether a person has an intention to stay at any place for a considerable period. A casual or a flying visit cannot come within the scope of the word residence .

( 6 ) IN the case of Mst. Jagir Kaur and another v. Jaswant Singh, (supra), it has been h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document