The provisions of Section 126(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 confer jurisdiction on the Court under whose territorial jurisdiction the wife resides to entertain proceedings under Section 125 of the Code.

Jai Singh Sekhon, J.

1. The sole controversy involved in this petition under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the New Code) is whether the Court under whose territorial jurisdiction the wife resides, can entertain proceedings under Sec.125 of the New Code as provided in Sec.126, sub-section (1), clause (b) of this Code.

2. The brief resume of facts relevant for the disposal of this petition is that Mst. Sarishta Devi was married to Kesho Dass Sharma, respondent, according to Hindu religious rites at village Bhagwanpur located in tehsil Pathankot of District Gurdaspur. Thereafter both the parties resided as husband wife in district Kathus in Jammu and Kashmir State. The husband refused and neglected to maintain his wife, which resulted in her residing with her parents at village Bhagwanpur in tehsil Pathankot. She filed an application under Sec.125 of the New Code against her husband claiming Rs.500.00 per month as maintenance allowance contending that her husband has refused to maintain her. The respondent resisted this application before the trial Court on merits as well as on the point of lack of territorial jurisdiction in the Court at Pathankot to entertain such application. The trial Court dismissed the application on merits only without expressing any opinion on the point of jurisdiction. The petitioner then went in revision before the Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his impugned order dated 25-1-1990 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Court at Pathankot to entertain such application besides holding that the provisions of Sec.125 of the New Code being not applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, such application was not maintainable. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, on merits held that the husband has refused and neglected to maintain the wife and that she was forced to live with her parents. Being aggrieved against the said order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge pertaining to lack of jurisdiction the petitioner has filed this petition for quashment of the same.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the record.

4. No doubt the provisions of the New Code have not been made applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir by the Legislature by providing in sub-sec. 2 of Sec.1, that this Code extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir, yet all the same in view of the specific provisions in sub-section (1) (b) of Sec.126 of this Code, the wife shall have right to file application under Sec.125 of the New Code at a place where her-husband or she resides. The relevant portion of Sec.126 reads as under: p126 Procedure.-

(1) Proceedings under Sec.125 may be taken against any person in any district - a) where he is, or b) where he or his wife resides, or c) where he last resided with his wife, or as the case may be, with the mother of the illegitimate child. T

5. A perusal of the aforereferred provisions of Sec.126 of the New Code makes the intent of the legislature very clear on the point of jurisdiction. This conclusion is further supported from the factum that a special procedure has been prescribed under Chapter 9 of the New Code for saving the wives, children and old parents from becoming destitute by incorporating a speedy remedy for awarding maintenance to these persons against the husband, parents or children, as the case may be. The above referred provisions of Sec.126 of the New Code are an improvement upon the existing corresponding provisions of Sec.488, sub-sec. 8 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure, that is, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, because in the old Code, it was provided in sub-sec. 8 that such proceedings under Sec.488 may be taken against any person in any district where he resides or where he last resided with his wife. Thus under these circumstances, the observations of the apex Court in Mst. Jagir Kaur and another. V