SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(All) 1166

UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Prafulla C.Pant, J.
Vinod Kumar -Appellant
Versus
Vijaya Devi -Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 199 of 2004
Decided On : 2-4-2010

Territorial jurisdiction and entitlement to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

Headnote:

Maintenance - Territorial Jurisdiction - The court set aside the maintenance order, ruling that the trial court and the Sessions Judge did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The respondent's leaving of the husband's house without sufficient reason also rendered her ineligible for maintenance.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist, claiming Rs. 500 per month. The trial court dismissed the application, but the Sessions Judge allowed the revision and directed the revisionist to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400 per month.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the trial court and the Sessions Judge did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application. Additionally, the respondent's leaving the husband's house without sufficient reason rendered her ineligible for maintenance.

Issues: Territorial jurisdiction, entitlement to maintenance

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the trial court and the Sessions Judge did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The respondent's leaving of the husband's house without sufficient reason rendered her ineligible for maintenance.

Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned judgment and order, thereby allowing the revision and ruling that the respondent was not entitled to maintenance.

Prafulla C. Pant, J.:-

This revision, is directed against the judg­ment and order dated 31.07.2004, passed by Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, in criminal revision No. 10 of 2004, whereby said court has allowed the revi­sion and directed the revisionist to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month to his wife (present responuent No. 1).

2. Heard learned counsel for the re­visionist and learned A.G.A. None ap­peared on behalf of respondent No. 1 even after being served sufficiently.

3. Brief facts of the case are that re-visionist-Vinod Kumar, got married to re­spondent Vijaya Devi in the year 1995. Out of wedlock, in the year 2000, a fe­male child was born. An application was filed by respondent-Vijaya Devi, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., against the revision­ist, claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. It is pleaded by her that she is unable to maintain herself. It is also stated by her that the revisionist has means to pay the maintenance but he is neglecting to maintain her. The trial court (Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh), recorded the evidence and dismissed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the respondent- Vijaya Devi, lives separately from her husband without any sufficient reason. Aggrieved by said order dated 17.01.2004, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh, in criminal misc. case No. 07 of 2003, crimi­nal revision No. 10 of 2004, was filed by the wife (present respondent No. 1). Af­ter hearing the parties, revisional court (Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh), vide im­pugned judgment and order dated 31.07.2004, allowed the revision and di­rected the revisionist to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month to re­spondent No. 1. Hence this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the revision­ist submitted that the Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, has committed grave error of law in allowing the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is argued that the cause of action arose within territorial ju­risdiction of Judicial Magistrate, Champawat and District and Sessions Judge, Champawat. It is further argued that neither Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh, had power to entertain the application nor the Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, had any territorial jurisdic­tion to allow the same under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Perusal of the papers on record, shows that marriage between the parties was solemnised within the territorial lim­its of District Champawat. Both the par­ties to the matrimony are resident of said District. As per the pleadings of the par­ties, the parties to the matrimony, started living separately in District Champawat. As such, this Court is of the view that the trial court at Pithoragarh, committed er­ror of law in entertaining the application and the Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, committed further error by allowing the application in respect of a cause, which did not, arose in its territorial jurisdiction. As such, the impugned order dated 31.07.2004, passed by Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh is liable to be set aside.

5. Sessions Division, Champawat, was created vide notification No. 174/x'g/2001, dated 02.11.2001 of Government of Uttarakhand, and the application in question under Section 125 Cr.P.C., was moved in the year 2003, at Pithoragarh, subsequent to the creation of Sessions Di­vision, Champawat.

6. Apart from this, having considered submissions of learned counsel for the re­visionist and after going through the pa­pers on record, this Court finds that even otherwise since the respondent-Vijaya Devi, herself left house of her husband af­ter leaving infant female child with her husband without any sufficient reason, as such, in view of provision contained in sub-section (4) of Section 125 Cr.P.C., she was not entitled to any maintenance, as observed by the trial court.

7. For the reasons, as discussed above, on both the grounds, this revision deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, re­vision is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 31.07.2004, passed by Sessions Judge, Pithor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top