S.K. Homchaudhuri, J.:-

The petitioner and the opposite party were married on 9.6.83. In 1987 the opposite party (wife) filed an appli­cation u/s. 125 Cr. P.C. in the court of the learned Asstt. to Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur for ordering payment of maintenance to her by the petitioner (husband). The application was registered as Misc. Case No. 70/87, u/s. 125 Cr. P.C. The petitioner is an employee of N. F. Railway and working as Diesel Assistant. The petitioner (husband) on receipt of notice challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the said learned Asstt to Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur. The learned Asstt. to Deputy Commissioner after hearing the parties by the order dated. 44.88, passed in Miss Case No. 70/87 u/s 125 Cr. P.C. held that this court has jurisdiction to adjudicate an application u/s 125 Cr. P.C. It is not disputed that the Asstt to Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur is also the Magistrate 1st Class as contemplated under the provisions of Cr. P.C. The petitioner impugned the said order in Criminal Revision No. 289/88 which was dismissed on 17.11.89 by this Court on the ground that the revision petition was not maintainable since against the impugned order appeal Jay before the court of Addl. Deputy Commissioner (3), Dimapur.

2. The petitioner thereafter impugned the order dated 4.4.88 passed by the learned Asstt. to Deputy Commissioner in Criminal Appeal No. 9/89 in the court of learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner (J), Dimapur. The learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner after hearing both the parties, dismissed the appeal by an order dated 11-6-90.

3. Thereafter, the learned Asstt. to Deputy Commissioner passed the impugned order dated 17.12.90 ordering that the petitioner shall pay maintenance to the opposite party (wife) at the rate of Rs. 500/-p.m with effect from 17.8 98 until fur her order. The petitioner has challenged the inherent jurisdiction of the court of Asstt to Deputy Commissioner to an application u/s 125 Cr. P C. in this petition.

4. I have heard Mr. S Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. C. Choudhury, learned counsel for the opposite party. Mr. Kataky submits that section 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has excluded the application of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in the State of Nagaland save and except, the provisions rel­ating to Chapter - VIII, X and XI of the Code. The Government of Nagaland has not issued any notification making the provision of Chapter IX of Cr. P.C. 1973 applicable in Nagaland and/or any part thereof. As such provision of Section 125 Cr. P.C. has no application in Nagaland. Provision of section 125 Cr. P.C. is a substantial one and not procedural and that following the spirit of Cr. P.C. as pro­vided under Rule 22 of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland, an application u/s. 125 Cr. P.C. cannot be entertatined. Mr. Kataki also submits that the court of Asstt. to Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudi­cate an application u/s. 125 Cr. P.C. In support of this contention reliance has been placed in the decision of this court in the case of Jamadar Poremeshwardin Singh-petitioner vs. Bidya Devi reported in 1962 (Vol-I) Criminal Law Journal-132.

5. Mr. N. Choudhury learned counsel of the opposite party submits that the provision of section 125 Cr.P.C. has been inserted in the Code as a measure of Social Justice to protect the women, children, and old parents who are unable to maintain themselves and the right to get maintanance as per provision of Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be fru­strated by making narrow technical interpretation of the applicability of the provision. For advancement of Social Justice, the applicabi­lity U/s. 125 Cr.P.C. and jurisdiction of court should be liberally construed. Learned Counsel has placed reliance in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Captain Ramesh Chander vs. Veena Kaushal (1978 S.C.-1807) In para 9 of the Hon'ble Sup­reme Court held :

This provision is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document