ORDER :

This petition is filed by the petitioners in Crl. Misc. No.145/2020 on the file of the Family Court, Dharwad, challenging the order dated 05.11.2020 on the file of the Family Court, Dharwad decline to accept the petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondent is served.

3. The Family court raised an objection with regard to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the address shown in the cause title and the documents produced by the petitioners do not tally and therefore, the office objection was accepted by the learned Judge of the Family Court and returned the petition to the petitioner for presentation of the same before the jurisdictional Court.

4. In this matter, though relevant documents have not been produced by the petitioners to say that they are residing at Dharwad, however, the petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that, she is residing with her Aunt Meenakshi Ritti’s House, at Dharwad. It has also come in the finding of the Family Court that the said Meenakshi Ritti is residing at Dharwad and therefore, the Family Court ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioners to have their say in the matter with regard to the proof of their residing in the house of their AuntMeenakshi Ritti. Since the petition is filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. which is a summary proceedings, the same requires immediate action by the Family court to safeguard the destitute wife and children. In the case of ABHILASH Vs. PARKASH, reported in AIR 2020 SC 4355, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that, the purpose of summary proceedings provided under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., is to provide immediate relief to the applicant. In the case of DWARIKA PRASAD SATPATHY Vs. BIDYUT PRAVA DIXIT AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 1999 SC 3348, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the provision contained under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice extended to protect wife and children and to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides speedy remedy to deserted women. It is also well established principle in law that strict proof of marriage is not a condition precedent for providing maintenance and the reasonable period of living is sufficient [(2010) 10 Scale 602]. In the case of RAJNESH Vs. NEHA AND ANOTHER, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that, the remedy provided under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice as envisaged under provision of the Constitution of India to prevent wife and children from falling into destitution and vagrancy. In the case of BHUWAN MOHAN SINGH Vs. MEENA AND OTHERS, reported in (2015) 6 SCC 353, it was held that, granting of maintenance to wife is for her sustenance. Sustenance does not mean animal existence, but signifies leading life in a similar manner, as she would have lived in the house of her husband. The relevant paragraph is extracted below:

7. At the outset, we are obliged to reiterate the principle of law how a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code has to be dealt with by the court, and what is the duty of a Family Court after establishment of such courts by the Family courts Act, 1984. In Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohd. Farooq, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 624, the Court opined that;

"16. …Proceedings under Section 125 [of the Code), it must be remembered, are of a summary nature and are intended to enable destitute wives and children, the latter whether they are legitimate or illegitimate, to get maintenance in a speedy manner.

8. A three-Judge Bench in Vimala (K) v. Veeraswamy (K), while discussing about the basic purpose under Section 125 of the Code, opined that: (SCC p. 378, para 3)

"3. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife."

9. A two Judge Bench in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat, wh