SH PRAKASH NARAYAN Vs. DEEPA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks to set aside the judgment dtd. 12/1/2024, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-01, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereafter, "learned Family Court") in the case titled "Smt. Deepa Devi Vs. Prakash C Narayan" in MT. Case No. 299/2018.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent no. 2 had been solemnised on 7/6/2015, according to Hindu rites and customs, at Almora, Uttarakhand, and the marriage had been duly consummated. Respondent no. 3 had been born out of the said wedlock and has been residing with respondent no. 2. It had been the case of respondent no. 1 that she had been harassed by the petitioner and his family members for dowry, for giving birth to a female child, and had ultimately been thrown out of the matrimonial home. The parties had been residing separately since September 2017. It was further stated that in October 2017, when respondent no. 2 had gone to the matrimonial home to collect her documents, she had been assaulted by her brother-in-law, who had also allegedly attempted to harm their daughter. A PCR call had been made following the said incident, but no effective action had ensued. Subsequently, on 15/1/2018, respondent no. 2 had filed an application under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, seeking maintenance from the petitioner. The petitioner had filed a reply opposing the application on the ground that the Delhi Courts lacked territorial jurisdiction, as both parties were residents of Almora, Uttarakhand. Nevertheless, on 15/3/2018, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court-02), Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, had directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs.25,000.00 per month to respondent no. 1. Thereafter, on 12/1/2024, the learned Family Court had passed the impugned judgment.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner husband argues that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law and is liable to be set aside as the same lacks territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the maintenance application under Sec. 125 of the Cr.P.C., as none of the parties has ever resided or worked for gain at any point of time in Delhi. It is also stated that the respondent no. 2, on 15/3/2018, before the learned Mahila Court, had submitted that she had been living at her parental home and had been dependent on the mercy of her parents. It is also submitted that respondent no. 2 had deposed on oath before the learned Magistrate Court at District Almora, Uttarakhand on 6/9/2019 that she had been residing in her parental village Kunidhar, District Almora since October 2017. It is further submitted that the respondent no.2, again in her cross-examination, on 3/1/2023, before the learned Family Court, had admitted her deposition made regarding residing with her parents at Kunidhar since 2017. It is further submitted that the respondents have failed to prove the lease agreement and the rent agreement dtd. 8/1/2018. It is argued that the respondent's explanation regarding the unserved summons is entirely false, as she allegedly shifted on 1/3/2019, whereas the summons had been returned unserved on 9/1/2019. It is also contended that the learned Final Court has made a mistake in assessing the income of the petitioner herein as Rs.60,000.00 per month instead of Rs.45,000..00 It is accordingly prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside, as the same is not maintainable either for want of territorial jurisdiction or even on merits.