Important Point-A party who participates in proceedings and thereby submits to jurisdiction of Court, is not allowed to turn around at a later stage that Court did not have territorial jurisdiction.

Whether the Family Court, Junagadh could have rejected the application of the applicant-wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to try the same, is the question for consideration.

2. The challenge in this Revision Application by the applicant-wife is directed against judgment and order dated 17.01.2014 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Junagadh, rejecting Criminal Misc. Application No. 9 of 2012 filed by the applicant claiming maintenance, holding that the Court had no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the same.

3. It is necessary to mention the facts of the case. The applicant had married with respondent No.1 on 06.03.2007 at Gandhinagar as per Hindu rites. The marriage was registered before the Registrar of Marriages. The applicant started living at the matrimonial home at Matunga at Mumbai in the joint family. Her husband was not keeping any marital relationship with her and in his conduct and activities, he was wedded to Harikrishna sect. He was only engrossed at all times in religious activities of the sect and was not interested in the applicant. It was the case of the applicant further that initially, she persuaded herself, but the things did not improve and on the contrary, her husband used to ask her to join the religious activity. She stated that she could never consummate her marriage. The husband and in-laws harassed her; when she used to complaint about the conduct of her husband, they used to quarrel. It was the case of the applicant that ultimately, she was deserted and driven out of her matrimonial home.

3.1 The applicant filed her application under Section 125, Cr.PC, on 03.12.2011. She claimed maintenancefrom the husband at Rs.20,000/- per month. It was her case that she had been leading a dependent life after she was deserted for no good reason and that she had no income to maintain herself. It was the case that her husband as well as father-in-law owned hotels and other properties in posh area of Mumbai and that their income was Rs.70000/- to 80000/- per month. It was averred by the applicant-wife that she wanted to study M.B.A. so that she could live independent life. It was averred that she was staying at Junagadh in a rented house. She produced a letter from her landlord that she was staying as tenant and that house was rented to her. In the application, the applicant-wife averred that she was staying at Junagadh at the address mentioned for the purpose of studies. The said application was filed on 14.02.2012. The applicant had also filed divorce proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act on 07.07.2011 in which also the very address of Junagadh was mentioned. Yet another proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was filed on 26.04.2012 and the same address was shown. It was stated that the Family Court, Junagadh had jurisdiction to try and decide the application.

3.2 The recording of evidence started in the proceedings. The applicant-wife tendered affidavit dated 14.02.2012 towards her examination-in-chief. It appears that in course of the proceedings before the Court, on 25.04.2012, the respondent submitted a Purshis (Exh.23) submitting that the applicant had been staying at village Lushala of Vanthali Taluka and was not staying at Junagadh, therefore applicant’s application before the Family Court at Junagadh was not triable as the Court at Junagadh did not have jurisdiction. Subsequently, the said Purshis came to be not pressed by making an endorsement thereon that liberty to file it again was being reserved. Thereafter, the evidence of the parties proceeded further. The Objection Purshis (Exh.23) was not raised again and such Purshis was subsequently filed. The evidence of the husband was recorded on 15.06.2013.

3.3 The respondent filed reply in this Revision Application stating inter alia that the applicant-wife had filed proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Viol