VINOD KUMAR Vs. VIJAYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision, is directed against the judg­ment and order dated 31.07.2004, passed by Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, in criminal revision No. 10 of 2004, whereby said court has allowed the revi­sion and directed the revisionist to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month to his wife (present responuent No. 1).

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the re­visionist and learned A.G.A. None ap­peared on behalf of respondent No. 1 even after being served sufficiently.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the revision­ist submitted that the Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, has committed grave error of law in allowing the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is argued that the cause of action arose within territorial ju­risdiction of Judicial Magistrate, Champawat and District and Sessions Judge, Champawat. It is further argued that neither Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh, had power to entertain the application nor the Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, had any territorial jurisdic­tion to allow the same under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Perusal of the papers on record, shows that marriage between the parties was solemnised within the territorial lim­its of District Champawat. Both the par­ties to the matrimony are resident of said District. As per the pleadings of the par­ties, the parties to the matrimony, started living separately in District Champawat. As such, this Court is of the view that the trial court at Pithoragarh, committed er­ror of law in entertaining the application and the Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, committed further error by allowing the application in respect of a cause, which did not, arose in its territorial jurisdiction. As such, the impugned order dated 31.07.2004, passed by Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh is liable to be set aside.