USHA GURUBAXANI Vs. LALIT GURUBAXANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicant is the first wife of non-applicant No. 1 and non-applicant No. 2 is his brother. A complaint was filed by her before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur against both the aforesaid non-applicants and five others including the second wife of non-applicant No. 1. The case was registered by the Magistrate against the two non-applicants alone for an offence of bigamy under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code against Lalit Gurubaxani, and under section 494/109 IPC against his brother non-applicant No. 2. Both the non-applicants challenged the jurisdiction of the Court alleging that only the Court at Satna where the first marriage was performed, or the Court at Rewa where the second marriage was performed, had jurisdiction to try the offence. This objection was overruled by the learned Magistrate by an order passed on 16-9-1996, holding that the Court at Jabalpur had jurisdiction under section 182(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. This order was however set aside in revision by Sessions Judge, Jabalpur on 12th December, 1996. It is this order of the learned Sessions Judge which has been challenged before us in this revision petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the applicant argued that the learned Sessions Judge had erred in holding that the Court at Jabalpur had no jurisdiction. The restricted view taken by the learned Sessions Judge that absence of averments about permanent residence of the complainant within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Jabalpur was fatal to the case, was totally unjustified. The learned Sessions Judge ought to have been guided by the spirit of the section and the intention of the Parliament and ought to have held in favour of the complainant in the light of the fact that she had filed her own affidavit and that of her brother Prakash Kesharwani in support of her case that she had taken permanent residence with her mother at Jabalpur at the address given in the complaint, as was done by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Reliance was placed on Ravindra Khare v. Gurmeet Singh (1985 Cr. LJ 601) and Tekumalla Muneiah v. Chittari Babunuri Ammanamma and another (1991) I DMC 379 : (1991 Cri LJ 548).

(3.) The learned counsel for non-applicants No. 1 and 2 supported the order of Sessions Judge contending that the averments regarding her permanent residence at Jabalpur after the commission of the offence were essential to clothe the Court at Jabalpur with jurisdiction to try the offence of bigamy. In support of this contention reliance was placed on Sushil Chandra Khare v. Mamta Khare 1984 M P Weekly Notes 211.