MAJID KHAN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court proceed to decide present case, i.e., an objection with regard to jurisdiction of an application filed under Sec. 125, Cr. P.C., in the background that Supreme Court in a judgment passed about four and half decades ago, has observed that provisions of Sec. 125, Cr. P.C. is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution. (See, Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kuashal and others, AIR 1978 SC 1807).

(2.) Above observation has been followed in Smt. Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohammed Farooq 1987 (13) ALR 28 (SC) (Sum.).; Vimla (K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.) (1991) 2 SCC 375. ; Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat and another 1996 (28) ALR 31 (SC) (Sum.) = 1996 (4) SCC 179.; Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008)2 SCC 316. and Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena and others 2014 (106) ALR 217 (SC).

(3.) In the present case, Opposite Party No. 2, i.e., complainant, has filed an application under Sec. 125, Cr. P.C. on 30/7/2021 declaring herself to be resident of District Bareilly.