1. Heard Counsel for the parties.

2. In this application, the order, dated 10.02.2005 passed by the Family Court in Trial No. 37 of 2005 has been questioned by the petitioner on the ground that the Family Court, Siwan had no jurisdiction to pass the said order inasmuch as the Opposite Party No. 2, the wife, was not residing at Siwan nor did the petitioner reside at Siwan nor even any of the requirement u/s. 126(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was fulfilled.

3. Counsel for the petitioner, in this regard, has placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Prasad V/s. the State of Bihar & Another, 2004 5 SCC 196 where in it has been held that a mere fleeting presence will not create jurisdiction in the Court for the purposes of initiating a proceeding u/s. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He, in this regard, urges that from the reading of the application filed by the Opposite Party no. 2 it would be clear that she had only claimed that she had gone to visit her mamas place and, therefore, on this pretext alone she could not have maintained a proceeding in the district of Siwan.

4. Mr. Ashok Jang Bahadur, Counsel for the Opposite Party No.