JUDGMENT

Poonam A. Bamba, J.

1.0. Vide this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 06.08.2020 ('impugned order' in short) of learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, Karkardooma Courts (East District), Delhi, dismissing the petitioner's petition under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C' in short) for lack of territorial jurisdiction.

2.0. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner can choose the forum for filing petition under Sectiion 125 Cr.P.C, in terms of Section 126 (1) Cr.P.C and placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in 'Shikhar Goel vs. Robina Kaushik and Another', 2021 SCC Online Del 4989: He further submitted that the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C may be initiated against any person in any district where 'He/(husband) is' and is not confined only to the 'residence' of the husband and rather includes the place where the husband works for gain or even where he is available, even temporarily. In support, reference was made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Jagir Kaur vs. Jaswant Singh, AIR 1963 SC 1521' and the order dated 17.12.2021 of this Court in Crl. Rev. P. 614/2018 titled as 'Asha Devi & Ors. Vs. Muneshwar Singh @ Munna'.

2.1. Ld. Counsel submitted that the documents filed by the petitioner along with her petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C i.e. her voter card, marriage certificate, reply of the respondent dated 15.07.2020 to the petitioner's legal notice dated 26.06.2020, audited account of saloon, her complaints dated 03.07.2020 and 13.07.2020 to the SHO, PS New Ashok Nagar, on which, FIR came to be registered at PS Tilak Marg, clearly demonstrate that the parties lived at A-81, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi- 110096 ; and the respondent admittedly works/worked for gain/running the salon on the ground floor of the said property under the name and style of 'Salon by Ela' on the date of filing of the petition, which is also the permanent address of the respondent. Said address falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court, Karkardooma Courts (East District), Delhi. But the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the facts and provisions of law and also overlooked the said documents filed by the petitioner in support of her petition.

3.0. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondent sought dismissal of this petition submitting that the ld. Trial Court rightly dismissed the petitioner's petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C for lack of jurisdiction after duly considering the facts and documents filed by the petitioner along with her petition.

3.1. Ld. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the parties never resided at A-81, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi. They were always living at B-61, Sector-14, Noida, UP. Same can be seen from the respondent's aforesaid reply dated 15.07.2020 to the legal notice, wherein the very first para mentions the respondent's address as B-61, Sector 14, Noida, U.P. Further, in her own complaint dated 13.07.2020 to the SHO, petitioner mentioned her address as 'B-2, Type-4, Pandara Road, New Delhi-110003 and B-61, Sector-14, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar UP and presently residing at 1305, Tower-27, Lotus Boluavard, Sector-100, Noida, UP. Learned counsel for the respondent denied that the respondent is working for gain at Delhi. He submitted that the aforesaid salon was being run by his mother and he has nothing to do with the same.

4.0. In rebuttal, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in her aforesaid complaint dated 13.07.2020, she has mentioned the address of the respondent and her parents-in-law as A-81 New Ashok Nagar, New Delhi and also at B-61 Sector 14 Noida. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even otherwise, it is not the petitioner's address, which is to be seen as the petitioner has chosen the Forum where the respondent 'is'. He submitted that the petitioner along with the respondent used to reside at both the addresses i.e. A-81, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi as well as at B-61