K MOHAN Vs. BALAKANTA LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the preliminary order made in M.C. 806 of 1980 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, rejecting the contention of the revision petitioner (respondent in M.C. 806 of 1980 - husband) that the Court below did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent herein (wife).

(2.) IT is a very unfortunate case wherein the highly educated couple are perpetually fighting with each other obviously for the reason that they are not able to get on together amciably. IT is seen from the records that after the marriage, both the parties resided at Bangalore and that the revision petitioner filed an original petition for annulment of the marriage before the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore city. Be that as it may, the respondent had left Bangalore and thereafter had filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Second Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, claiming maintenance from the revision petitioner. In that petition she has stated in the preamble that she is now residing at madras. The respondent, on receipt of the notice from the Court of the Second Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, had filed a counter denying the allegation and raising a preliminary objection stating that the said Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this application under section 125 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the respondent is not residing within its jurisdiction, viz. in the Madras City, but on the other hand is permanently residing with her parents at Ambattur within the jurisdiction of the Chengalpattu district and therefore the application ought to have been presented before the Court concerned in Chengalpattu district having jurisdiction over Ambattur area. To substantiate his preliminary objection, the petitioner has filed a number of documents marked as Exs. R-1 to R-5 No oral evidence was let in by either of the the parties. The learned Magistrate, observing that the term 'resides' occurring in Section 125(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C., should be liberally construed, held, on the sole basis of the averment in the preamble of the petition that the respondent is residing at Madras, that he has got the territorial jurisdiction to entertain that application and the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner with regard to the jurisdiction is to be overruled. IT is as against this order, the present revision is preferred.

(3.) THIS revision raises the question as to the true construction of the term 'resides' appearing in Section 126(1)(b) of the Criminal P.C. Leaving apart the question about the respondent's entitlement for maintenance, we have to determine in this case the question about the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Madras to entertain this application filed under section 125 Cr.P.C. because the jurisdiction of the Court is to be determined by the residence of the parties. The answer to this question turns upon the interpretation of clauses (a) to (c) of Section 126(1) of the Code which demarcate the jurisdictional limits of a Court to entertain a petition under section 125. I shall presently give the present and the corresponding past provisions of the Code in the following table so that one can easily understand the position of law that stood earlier and the present position consequent upon the amendment made in the present Code. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sec. 488(8) of the Criminal Section 126(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1893 procedure Code, 1973. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Proceedings under this section may Proceeding under Section 125 may be be taken against any person in any taken against any person in any district where he resides or is, or district - where he last resided with his wife, or, as the case may be, the mother (a) where he is, or or of the illegitimate child. (b) where he or his wife resides, or(c) where he last resided with his wife, or as the case may be, with the mother of the illegitimate child. On a plain reading of Section 488(8) of the old Code, it can be seen that the place where the wife resided after desertion by her husband was not material. THIS caused great hardship to wives who after desertion were living far away from the place where they and their husbands last resided together. So, in order to remove such hardships, on the recommendation made by the Law Commission, the present Section 126(1)(b) was enacted by introducing the expression 'or his wife' between the words 'he' and 'resides', so that the venue of the proceedings should also include the place where the deserted or neglected wife may be residing on the date of the application. In the present revision, the crucial word 'resides' occurring in Section 126(1)(b) alone comes up for interpretation. Under the old Code, the Magistrate of the district where the husband or father, as the case may be, resided, only had the jurisdiction. Now the jurisdiction is enlarged or widened Section 126(1) gives three alternative forums as enumerated in Clauses (a) to (c) there under. These alternative forms are designedly given by the Parliament so as to enable a discarded wife or helpless child to get the much-needed and urgent relief in one or the other of the three forums that is convenient to them. Needless to say that the proceeding under section 125 is in the nature of a civil proceeding and the remedy is a summary one, as laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 126, and the person seeking the remedy, as pointed out above, is ordinarily a helpless person. The introduction of the expression in Section 126(1)(b) is 'or his wife.