P.K. Saikia, J.

1. This revision proceeding is directed against the order dated 17.05.2011, passed by 1st Class Magistrate, East Khasi Hills, Shillong, in Maintenance case No. 13(T) 2010, dismissing the aforesaid proceeding on holding that the Magistrate at Shillong has no jurisdiction to try the proceeding under Section 125 CrPC since Smti Arti Agarwal, applicant therein, did not reside at any place over which said Magistrate could exercise its jurisdiction. Heard Mr. M.F. Quershi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Chakravarty, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of present proceeding are that Smti Arti Agarwal was married by Shri Amit Goenka, at Guwahati on 2.05.2007 as per Hindu rights and customs. For convenience of discussion, Smti Arti Agarwal and Shri Amit Goenka would be referred to hereinafter as the petitioner and respondent respectively.

3. After the marriage, they started to live as husband and wife in her matrimonial house at Saptagram in the District of Dhubri in Assam. However, their marriage soon ran into rough weather as the husband of the petitioner Smti Arti Agarwal allegedly started torturing her both mentally and physically. Having found no other way out, she came to her parental house and thereafter started living in Shillong at a place which has been properly described in her application under Section 125 CrP.C.

4. Since her parents were poor persons and since she was unable to maintain herself, she has filed an application under Section 125 CrPC before the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Shillong, which was transferred to 1st Class Magistrate Shillong for disposal in accordance with law. The learned Magistrate, on the receipt of the application and on being requested, was pleased to grant the petitioner Rs. 2000/- per month as being interim allowance till the disposal of the case or until further order.

5. The respondent in due course entered appearance and having filed a petition challenged the maintainability of such a proceeding on the ground that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to try the same. Learned Magistrate thereafter heard the parties and vide order dated 17.05.2011, dismissed the proceeding on holding that he has no jurisdiction to try the same as petitioner did not have any residence in any place over which he could exercise his power conferred on him by law. At the same time, he allowed the petitioner to file such an application in the Court of competent jurisdiction.

6. Being aggrieved by aforesaid order, the petitioner has come up before this Court with the present revision proceeding alleging that the petitioner does reside at Happy Valley Shillong and ignoring such a fact Magistrate came to conclusion that the petitioner is not a resident of East Khasi Hills District but of Ri Bhoi District instead. In arriving in such conclusion, he places reliance on some documents which are not at all the part of the proceeding aforesaid. Such a conclusion is therefore in complete contradictions to the arrangement made in Section 126 CrPC which governs the place where a proceeding under Chapter-IX of CrPC needs to be instituted.

7. Notice of this proceeding was served on the respondent. He entered appearance and contested this proceeding contending that the order impugned was passed strictly in accordance with law since there were materials before the Magistrate to show that petitioner resides not at Happy Valley, Shillong but at Barapani, a place within the District of Ri-Bhoi. Being so, the learned Magistrate commits no wrong/illegality, whatsoever, in dismissing aforesaid proceeding and as such, aforesaid decision cannot be faulted.

8. According to learned counsel for the respondent this proceeding before the Magistrate at Shillong is not maintainable for other reason as well. In that connection, it has been pointed out Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, in its order dated 10.05.11, passed in Case No. Tr. P (C) 41 of 2010, ordered the transfer o