(1.) RESPONDENT in M.C.No.212 of 2008 of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram seeks to quash proceeding against him on the ground that the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram has no jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding initiated by respondent No.1, mother for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code"). Contention of the petitioner is that since he is a permanent resident of Chennai, Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by his mother in view of decision of the Supreme Court in Moosa v. Lakshmanan (2004 (2) KLT 438). Petitioner was permitted to supplement his objection by taking up such a contention vide order on I.A.No.498 of 2010. In the meantime, on the application of respondent No.1 (I.A.No.306 of 2010) the Family Court ordered interim maintenance to respondent No.1 at the rate of `.15,000/- per month as per Annexure-1, order. Petitioner claims that he is unable to pay such amount and at any rate the court has passed the order without jurisdiction notwithstanding the contention raised by petitioner. It is also submitted that in the meantime respondent No.1 has filed Annexure-11, application to strike off the defence of petitioner on account of non-payment of the amount of interim maintenance. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel submitted in the light of the decision referred to supra, Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
(2.) SINCE an objection in that line is already raised before the Family Court, it is open to the petitioner to challenge the maintainability of the petition. There is no reason why this Court should quash proceeding invoking power under Section 482 of the Code.