The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of ensuring that the wife and/or child of the husband are not left to destitution and vagrancy if they do not have the means to maintain themselves. The judgment also emphasizes the liberal construction of territorial jurisdiction in cases of maintenance, in line with the underlying purpose of Section 125 of Cr.P.C as a social welfare legislation.

Headnote:
Section 125 Cr.P.C - Jurisdiction - [MAINTENANCE] - [Section 125 of Cr.P.C] - The court discussed the territorial jurisdiction under Section 125 of Cr.P.C and the interpretation of the same. It highlighted the importance of ensuring that the wife and/or child of the husband are not left to destitution and vagrancy if they do not have the means to maintain themselves. The court emphasized that technicalities such as jurisdiction should not impede the object sought to be achieved by the provision, which is essentially a social welfare legislation. The judgment also referenced legal precedents to support the liberal construction of territorial jurisdiction in cases of maintenance.
Fact of the Case:

The husband filed a petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C read with Section 482 Cr.P.C against the dismissal of his application under Section 126 of Cr.P.C for maintenance by the Family Court, New Delhi. The dispute arose from the wife's claim of residing in Delhi to avail maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C, while the husband contended that she resided in Faridabad.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the learned Principal Judge carefully analyzed the material on record before concluding that the Trial Court had territorial jurisdiction. It held that the Order of the learned Principal Judge was well-reasoned and free from legal infirmity, and thus dismissed the petition.
Issues: The issues revolved around the territorial jurisdiction for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C, with the husband disputing the wife's claim of residing in Delhi and seeking maintenance from there.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of ensuring that the wife and/or child of the husband are not left to destitution and vagrancy if they do not have the means to maintain themselves. It also highlighted the liberal construction of territorial jurisdiction in cases of maintenance, citing legal precedents to support its interpretation.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court found no legal infirmity in the Order passed by the learned Principal Judge.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. - This petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C read with Section 482 Cr.P.C is directed against Order dated 07.03.2020 passed by the Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Patiala House Courts wherein it dismissed the application filed by the Petitioner herein under Section 126 Cr.P.C.

2. Facts, in brief, leading to the present petition are stated as under:

a) The Petitioner/husband and the Respondent/wife got married on 04.02.2014 in Faridabad, Haryana. On 29.01.2016, a daughter was born to the Petitioner and the Respondent.

b) On 02.08.2014, i.e. almost six months after the marriage, the Petitioner herein rejoined his previous company, Qatar Airways, and relocated to Qatar, and the Respondent/wife went to Qatar to stay with the Petitioner. The Respondent/wife, along with the minor child, returned to India on 13.06.2016, but she did not go to her matrimonial home, i.e. Sector-7, Faridabad. It is alleged that when the Petitioner came to India on 21.07.2016, the Respondent/wife refused to allow him to meet their child.

c) Due to the disputes between both the parties, a number of cases have been filed by them against each other which are as follows:

i. CAW Cell complaint was filed by the Respondent/wife on 20.07.2016 in New Delhi.

ii. Child custody case was filed by the Petitioner/husband on 29.07.2016 in Faridabad.

iii. DV Act Complaint filed by Respondent/wife on 10.08.2016 in New Delhi.

iv. A complaint under Section 125 of Cr.P.C was filed by the Respondent/wife on 24.08.2018 in New Delhi.

d) The Respondent/wife then filed an application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC on 15.04.2017 in the child custody petition filed by the Petitioner herein before the Ld. Family Court, Faridabad. The Ld. Family Court, Faridabad, after relying on the documents filed by the Respondent/wife in support of her DV case i.e. doctors bills, electricity bills etc. dismissed the said application vide Order dated 20.07.2017 holding that the Respondent/wife does not live in Delhi and, hence, Faridabad was the correct Jurisdiction. The said Order was upheld by the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court vide order dated 30.04.2019.

e) The Petitioner then moved an application under Section 126 of Cr.P.C. before Family Court, New Delhi, based on the Order dated 20.07.2017 of the learned Family Court, Faridabad. He further filed a list of evidences on 05.05.2019 in support of his claim in Family Court, New Delhi. The Respondent/wife also filed her reply and documents in order to support her stance about Delhi as jurisdiction.

f) The learned Principal Judge vide order dated 07.03.2020 dismissed the application filed by the Petitioner/husband under Section 126 of Cr.P.C. stating that based on the documents submitted by the Respondent/wife, she is presumably staying in Delhi, and therefore, the jurisdiction for purposes of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. would be Delhi.

g) It is this Order dated 07.03.2020 passed by the Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, New Delhi, which has been challenged in the instant petition.

3. Heard Ms. Roma Bhagat, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, and perused the material on record.

4. Ms. Roma Bhagat, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, contends that the impugned Order dated 07.03.2020 is arbitrary and the learned Principal Judge has failed to apply his mind to the substantial evidence that has been produced by the Petitioner. She submits that the learned Principal Judge has failed to appreciate the significance of the fact that even though the police had refused to register an FIR on the grounds that the address given by the respondent/wife was untraceable and forcing her to correct the same on 04.10.2016, she used the incorrect address in her petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. after two years. She further states that the learned Principal Judge has failed to appreciate that in all the documents filed by the Respondent/wife, she has provided a non-existent address.

5. The learned Counsel for th