Andhra Pradesh High Court
N.D. PATNAIK, J.
Nomula Anjaneyulu - Petitioner
Versus
Nomula Hymavathi and others –Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 40 of 1988
Decided on : 17-10-1989
MAINTENANCE - SECTION 125 CR.P.C. - JURISDICTION - WIFE AND CHILD RESIDING AT BHADRACHALAM - PETITION FILED IN KHAMMAM COURT - WHETHER COURT HAS JURISDICTION - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 126 CR.P.C. - EVIDENCE OF RESIDENCE - FINDINGS OF FACT BY LOWER COURTS.
Fact of the Case:
Wife and child filed a petition for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in Khammam Court, alleging neglect by the husband. The husband objected to the jurisdiction of the court, claiming that the wife and child resided in Bhadrachalam. The Munsif Magistrate dismissed the petition, but the Sessions Judge allowed a revision petition and remanded the matter for fresh disposal. The Munsif Magistrate then held that the court had jurisdiction and awarded maintenance. The husband filed a revision petition, challenging the jurisdiction and the finding of neglect.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Munsif Magistrate's court at Khammam had jurisdiction to order maintenance as the wife and child were residing in Khammam at the time of filing the petition. The court relied on the evidence of the wife, her cousin brother, and a neighbor, who testified that the wife and child were living in Khammam. The court also noted that under Section 126 Cr.P.C., proceedings for maintenance can be taken in any district where the wife resides, and that Bhadrachalam is part of Khammam District.
Issues: 1. Whether the Munsif Magistrate's court at Khammam had jurisdiction to order maintenance. 2. Whether the husband neglected to maintain the wife and child.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 126 Cr.P.C. allows proceedings for maintenance to be taken in any district where the wife resides. 2. The evidence of the wife, her cousin brother, and a neighbor established that the wife and child were residing in Khammam at the time of filing the petition. 3. The husband failed to provide any evidence to rebut the evidence of the wife and her witnesses.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the jurisdiction of the Munsif Magistrate's court at Khammam and the finding of neglect by the husband.
ORDER :
1. Respondents 1 and 2 who are wife and child of the petitioner have filed a petition M.C. 19/81 for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the court of the Munsif Magistrate, Khammam alleging that the petitioner neglected to maintain them. The petitioner took objection to the jurisdiction of the court contending that as the respondents were residing at Bhadrachalam, the Munsif Magistrate's Court at Khammam had no jurisdiction. The learned Munsif Magistrate accepted the contention and dismissed that petition. Against that a revision petition was filed before the Sessions Judge, Khammam who allowed the same and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal after giving opportunity to parties to adduce further evidence. After remand, the Munsif Magistrate, Khammam held that the court has got jurisdiction and also accepted the case of the respondents i.e. petitioners in M.C. that the petitioner neglected to maintain them and awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/- P.M. for the wife and Rs. 100/- p.m. for the child. Against that the petitioner filed a revision to the Sessions Judge. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge who heard the revision held that the court of the Munsif Magistrate, Khan???mam has jurisdiction and also accepted the contention that the petitioner neglected to maintain the wife and child and dismissed the revision.
2. Questioning the same, this petition is filed. In this petition the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Munsif Magistrate's court at Khammam has no jurisdiction to order maintainance as the wife and child are living at Bhadrachalam. Sec. 126 Crl.P.C. says that proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. may be taken against any person in any District (a) Where he is or (b) where he or his wife resides or (c) where he last resided with his wife or as the case may be with the mother of the illegitimate child. The husband resides in some village in Krishna District where the parties last resided together. That is not the court in which the petition was filed. The wife filed the petition in the Khammam Court giving her address at Khammam. The petitioner in MC 19/81 i.e. wife who is examined as P.W. 1 deposed that she is living with her cousin brother in Khammam. P.W. 3 who is her cousin brother deposed that the petitioner is living with him and P.W. 4 who is a neighbour of P.W. 3 had deposed that the petitioner and her child are living at Khammam in the house of P.W. 3. The learned Magistrate and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge have held that the petitioner is residing at Khammam relying on the evidence. In this petition the learned counsel for the petitioner had referred to the allegation in para 3 of M.C. 19/81 in which the petitioner in M.C. 19/81 had alleged that after her husband had driven her out of the house, she along with her minor son were forced to take shelter at the house of her parents and now are living as destitutes at the mercy of others. He had argued that as the parents of he wife are living at Bhadrachalam, this allegation shows that the wife and child are living at Bhadrachalam and not at Khammam. He has also referred to Ex. R-4 which is a certificate issued by office of the Sub-Collector, Bhadrachalam to the effect that the wife had filed a petition for Widow's pension before the Sub-Collector, Bhadrachalam and that was not granted. He further commented that the evidence of P.W. 3 is not at all convincing to prove that P.W. 1 is residing at Khammam. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents i.e. wife and child had pointed out that even though they went to the house of the parents of the wife at Bhadrachalam after being driven out by the husband, subsequently she went to Khammam and is living with her cousin brother by the time of filing of the petition, as could be seen from her evidence and he further contended that since both the courts below have accepted the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 on the question of fact, i.e. wife
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.