RAHUL KUMAR RAJAK Vs. NIKITA SONWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is husband, facing proceeding under Section 125 of the CrPC at the behest of his wife, the respondent herein, who filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dongargarh claiming maintenance in which the present petitioner appeared and filed objection that the respondent wife is resident of Dhamtari and therefore the application for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC is not maintainable which was rejected by the learned ACJM and upheld by the revisional Court against which this petition under Section 482 of the CrPC has been preferred by the petitioner husband.

(2.) Mr. Sunil Pillai, learned counsel for the petitioner husband, would submit that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction in view of the Family Court having been constituted for the entire district of Rajnandgaon under Section 3 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. He would further submit that since the respondent wife is resident of Dhamtari as disclosed by him in the proceeding under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, therefore, the application is not maintainable.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders and copies of other documents with utmost circumspection.