Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
G. S. N. TRIPATHI
PYARE LAL S/o SHEO LAL - Appellant
Versus
SIAWATI - Respondents
Criminal Revision 1417 Of 1996
Decided On : 11/05/1996
MAINTENANCE - SECTION 125 CR. P. C. - SECTION 126 CR. P. C. - SECTION 127 CR. P. C. - JURISDICTION - WIFE CAN SUE HUSBAND FOR MAINTENANCE AT THE PLACE WHERE SHE IS ACTUALLY RESIDING, EVEN IF IT IS NOT HER PERMANENT ABODE.
Fact of the Case:
The wife filed a petition under Section 125 Cr. P. C. claiming maintenance from her husband. The husband objected to the jurisdiction of the Kanpur Court, claiming that it was not his or his wife's permanent abode. However, he later entered into a compromise with the wife and agreed to pay maintenance. The wife subsequently filed two more petitions for enhancement of maintenance, which were also allowed by the Court. The husband again objected to the jurisdiction of the Kanpur Court, but the Court rejected his objection.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the wife was residing at Kanpur with her uncle and that the Kanpur Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 125 Cr. P. C. The Court also held that the husband had impliedly submitted to the jurisdiction of the Kanpur Court by entering into a compromise with the wife and by not challenging the orders passed by the Court in the subsequent petitions.
Issues: 1. Whether the Kanpur Court had jurisdiction to entertain the wife's petition under Section 125 Cr. P. C. 2. Whether the husband had impliedly submitted to the jurisdiction of the Kanpur Court.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Under Section 126 Cr. P. C., proceedings under Section 125 Cr. P. C. may be taken against any person in any district where he is, or where he or his wife resides, or where he last resided with his wife. 2. The wife had alleged that she was residing with her uncle at Kanpur and that she had been beaten by the husband there. The husband had admitted that the wife casually visits Kanpur and that her permanent abode is in Unnao. However, he had entered into a compromise with the wife and had agreed to pay maintenance. He had also not challenged the orders passed by the Court in the subsequent petitions. 3. The Court held that the wife's allegations that she resided at Kanpur with her uncle stood proved and that the Kanpur Court had total jurisdiction with regard to the proceedings under Section 125 Cr. P. C.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed and the husband was directed to make the payment as ordered by the Court below.
( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 30-8-96 passed by the Family Court, Kanpur Nagar. CO/do/a947/96/bss/usa
( 2 ) ADMITTEDLY, the revisionist Pyare Lal is the husband of Smt. Siawati, respondent No. 1 Smt. Siawati filed a criminal case No. 222 of 1988, under S. 125 Cr. P. C. claiming maintenance on several grounds. The case was filed in the Court of Family Court Judge, Kanpur Nagar. In paragraph 8 of the petition, she has alleged that the revisionist turned her out of his house and threw her at the house of her uncle at Kanpur, ordering her not to come back except when she had arranged Rs. 10,000. 00. On 3-5-85 again the husband physically assaulted her in Kanpur Nagar. He has remarried.
( 3 ) BEFORE the learned Family Court Judge, an objection was raised by the revisionist that the Kanpur Court had no jurisdiction. However, he did not press this objection and parties entered into a compromise, whereby, the revisionist agreed to pay maintenance and thus the payment continued thereafter. The objection with regard to the lack of jurisdiction of Kanpur Nagar Court was not pressed. The compromise dated 8-2-90 was entered into between the parties and as per that compromise. Rs. 225. 00 p. m. was awarded as maintenance by the Court on 8-2-90 as per compromise filed on the record. No revision was filed against this order.
( 4 ) AFTER some time, the wife again moved the Court for enhancement of the monthly allowance on the ground of escalation in prices. That was allowed and the monthly allowance was enhanced to Rs. 250. 00. Although the revisionist reiterated his mild objection on the point of jurisdiction of Kanpur Nagar Court but here also, he did not press it and the sum of Rs. 250. 00 was granted by the Court. No revision was filed against this order too.
( 5 ) THEREAFTER, again she moved an application in Case No. 92 of 1995 and claimed that due to escalation in prices further, she was not able to maintain herself on a meager amount of Rs. 250. 00. It should be enhanced. The revisionist objected to the same mainly on the ground want of jurisdiction. The learned Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, vide his impugned order dated 30-8-96, rejected this objection of the revisionist as repeatedly the revisionist had acceded to the jurisdiction of the Family Court at Kanpur Nagar. Hence this revision.
( 6 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record, I find that there is no force in this revision and it deserves to be dismissed.
( 7 ) IN the initial application u/s. 125 Cr. P. C. , the wife had alleged that she had been left at the residence of her uncle at Kanpur Nagar. Further, she has alleged that she was beaten by the revisionist there also. Hence she was residing at the house of her uncle although, her parents belonged to Unnao. But after the marriage with the revisionist, she has been residing at Kanpur Nagar with her uncle. The revisionist in his objection (Annexure 4), dated 21-3-96, in paragraph 4, has admitted that the revisionist casually visits Kanpur at the house of her uncle. But Kanpur is not her permanent abode rather, her permanent abode is Distt. Unnao, where her parents, now only her mother, after the death of her father, reside. Again when she moved for enhancement of the monthly allowance from Rs. 225. 00 to Rs. 250. 00 an order of the Court was passed enhancing the amount. The revisionist did not challenge that order before any revisional Court despite his mild objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the Court. Hence when the last application was moved, he reiterated his objection with regard to the jurisdiction which has been rejected and thus he has filed this revision.
( 8 ) THE conduct of the revisionist shows that twice he has submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court at Kanpur Nagar. It is not a case of lack of total jurisdiction of the Court at Kanpur. Under Section 126 Cr. P. C. , it has been provided that proceedings u/s. 125
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
