SURESH MITTAL Vs. SARAS GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision arises out of the judgment and order dated 4.9.1992 passed by the IV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah in Case No. 262 of 1990 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. allowing maintenance to the Opp. Party at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month from the date of institution of the application.

(2.) The order of the learned Magistrate has been challenged mainly on the ground that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah has got no jurisdiction to try the case and that the Opp. Party is not unable to maintain herself. It has also been stated that the Opp. Party has deserted the revisionist and lived separately and that the revisionist having retired from Service does not have sufficient means to provide his wife.

(3.) With regard to the first part the learned Counsel has submitted that the marriage took place on 29.11.1987 at Delhi and the Opp. Party lived there upto 10.12.1987 and the left then place of her husband. So the Etawah Court has got no jurisdiction to try this case. In reply the learned Counsel for the Opp. Party has referred Section 125 Cr.P.C. wherein it has been provided that proceeding under Section 125 may be taken against any person in any district...... (b) where he or his wife resides. He has submitted that though the marriage took place at Delhi, and the Opp. Party resided with her husband at Delhi but after being deserted when she began to live with her parents at Etawah and hence Etawah Court has jurisdiction to try this case. I fully agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the Opp. Party and find that the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner has got no force.