IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. are welfare-oriented, allowing jurisdiction based on the complainant's permanent residence despite temporary stays elsewhere.

JUDGMENT :

(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.)

1. The Court proceed to decide present case, i.e., an objection with regard to jurisdiction of an application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., in the background that Supreme Court in a judgment passed about four and half decades ago, has observed that provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution. (See, Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal vs. Mrs. Veena Kuashal and others, AIR 1978 SC 1807).

2. Above observation has been followed in Smt. Dukhtar Jahan vs. Mohammed Farooq (1978)1 SCC 624; Vimla (K.) vs. Veeraswamy (K.) (1991)2 SCC 375; Kirtikant D. Vadodaria vs. State of Gujarat and another (1996)4 SCC 479; Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai (2008)2 SCC 316 and Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena and others (2015)6 SCC 353.

3. In the present case, Opposite Party No. 2, i.e., complainant, has filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 30.07.2021 declaring herself to be resident of District Bareilly.

4. In aforesaid case applicant appeared and filed an objection that complaint is resident of Delhi and she has filed an application under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2005”) stating that she was a resident of Delhi and during proceeding thereof the address was verified also. Applicant has challenged the maintainability of application so filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on ground of jurisdiction.

5. Complainant has filed a reply to aforesaid objection mentioning specifically that her permanent address where her parents reside is at Bareilly and only for the purpose of job she stayed at Delhi and she has frequent visits to her permanent address at Bareilly.

6. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly considered the application of complainant and objection of applicant and passed impugned order dated 21.01.2023 whereby objection with regard to jurisdiction was rejected. For reference impugned order is reproduced hereinafter:

7. Sri Mohammad Fateh, learned counsel for applicant, has placed reliance on a judgment passed by High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in Nirman Sagar vs. Smt. Monika Sagar Chaudhari and another (Criminal Revision No. 3060 of 2021), decided on 01.04.2022 that in terms of Section 126 Cr.P.C. the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. can be initiated in any district where he or his wife resides or where he last resided with her wife or as the case may be with the mother of the illegitimate child and further held that word ‘reside’ would not include a casual stay or a flying visit to a particular place.

8. Above submissions are vehemently opposed by Sri Mohd. Zubair, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 and he placed reliance on Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal (supra) that since provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. are of welfare legislation, therefore, the issue of jurisdiction be also considered in a liberal manner.

9. On merit, learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 submits that Trial Court has considered that Bareilly is permanent residence of complainant where she is frequently visiting and only for the purpose of job she stays at Delhi though he has not disputed that an application under Section 12 of Act, 2005 was filed at Delhi.

10. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.

11. Aforesaid fact with regard to filing of application under Section 12 of Act, 2005 at Delhi as well as complainant resides at Delhi for the purpose of job, is not under dispute. It is also not under much dispute that complainant’s parents are permanent resident of Bareilly. Marriage was also solemnized at Bareilly. Therefore, it cannot be much disputed that complainant is visiting at her permanent residence frequently. As such, it cannot be said that visit to Bareilly was a casual stay or a flying visit. Permanent address of complai