The judgment establishes the importance of territorial jurisdiction in maintenance cases and emphasizes the obligation of a person to provide maintenance to his parents.

Subhash Kakade, J.

This revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, here-in-after referred as "the Code", has been filed by the applicant-son being aggrieved by the order dated 10.01.2015, passed in Case No. 235/2014, by the Principal Judge of Family Court Waidhan, District Singrouli, whereby the Family Court allowing the application filed by the respondent-mother granted interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.4,500/- per month in her favour.

2. The case of the respondent, 70 years old widow lady before learned Family Court was that her son, the applicant is posted at U.P. Electricity Board and getting salary of Rs.80,000/- per month. The Board has provided service to the applicant in lieu of acquisition of ancestral land. The applicant has also received other ancestral property. The respondent is living with her daughter and son-in-law at village Ganiyari, District Singrouli since last one year as the applicant is avoiding her maintenance therefore, the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Code for maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month along with application for grant of interim maintenance amount before learned Family Court.

3. The applicant entered his appearance on 19.01.2015 without filing reply, but raised objection by filing an application under the provisions of Section 126 of the Code. Objection made on the ground that the said application for maintenance as well as application for interim maintenance is beyond jurisdiction therefore, learned Family Court has no jurisdiction to hear this case. In support of his objection the applicant also filed documents.

4. The learned Family Court allowed the application for grant of interim maintenance in favour of the respondent after rejecting the grounds under challenge. Being aggrieved by the impugned order the applicant invoked revisional jurisdiction of this court by filing this revision.

5. Relying on the strength of law lay down by the Apex Court in case of Vijay Kumar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2004) 5 SCC 196, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that learned Family Court failed to consider this fact of jurisdiction that the applicant who is working at U.P. Electricity Board is residing at village Kulmodi, District Sonbhadra (U.P.) as it is admitted position as per certificate Annexure D-4 and other documentary evidence i.e. Ration Card, Medical Book, Election I.D. and entire ancestral property is also situated at village Kulmodi. Hence, the application filed by the respondent-mother is not maintainable before the learned Family Court at Singrouli (M.P.) being hit on the ground of jurisdiction. The proceeding instituted under the provisions of Section 125 of the Code are civil in nature, hence the question of territorial jurisdiction is of utmost importance. The learned Family Court without considering the documentary evidence adduced by the applicant granted interim maintenance of Rs.4,500/- per month is apparently much excessive.

6. The object of the maintenance proceedings instituted under the provisions of Chapter IX of the Code are not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can provide support to those who are unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to support.

7. Section 125 of the Code is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women, children and parents as noted by the Apex Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal Vs. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and Others, (1978) 4 SCC 71 falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

8. It is also held by the Apex Court that interim maintenance pendente lite can be granted - Please see- Savitri Rawat Vs. Govind Singh Rawat, (1985) 4 SCC 337.

9. The Apex Court in the case of Shail Kumari Devi and Another Vs. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak @ Kishun B. Pathak, (2008) 9 SCC 632, held that in absence of any express bar or prohibition t