N B BHIKSHU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the son and the 2nd respondent in his father. The 2nd respondent has instituted M.C. No. 15 of 1991 on the file of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad claiming maintenance against the petitioner. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1589 of 1991 was filed by the petitioner herein seeking determination of the question of jurisdiction on the ground that the parties belong to Tenali and had last resided together at Tenali, and that the petitioner was employed in Employees State Insurance Corporation, Bombay and had been staying in Bombay ever since then. The contention of the petitioner that the plea as available to the wife to sue wherever she is, is not extended to the father. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M. S. N. Prasad takes me to the provisions of S. 126, Cr.P.C. in this regard. S. 126(1), Cr.P.C. reads as follows :-

(2.) As rightly contended by Mr. M. S. N. Prasad, the only clause which is applicable for the 2nd respondent in the instant case is clause (a) of sub-section (1) of S. 126, Cr.P.C. The other clauses of sub-section (1) of S. 126 are relating to the respondent or wife or illegitimate child, as the case may be.

(3.) The language of S. 126, Cr.P.C. is clear to the effect that the father cannot file a petition for maintenance at the place where he resides and that he has to file the petition where his sons stay. Under S. 125, Cr.P.C., the benefit given to the wife and the children to initiate proceedings at the place where she/they reside/s is not given to the parents. The parents cannot be placed on the same footing as that of the wife and children for the purpose of S. 126, Cr.P.C. In the instant case, the petitioner stays at Bombay and as such the proceedings have to be initiated only at Bombay.