PRASAD CHOUDHURY Vs. SASMITA SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present application filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashment of the criminal proceedings vide Criminal Proceeding No. 110 of 2020 pending in the court of learned Judge, Family Court, Bhadrak on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the said court.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and the opposite party married on 13/5/2013 as per Hindu rites and customs in the residential house of opposite party at village Belar Nuagaon in the district of Kendrapara. Thereafter, both of them resided at village Baripalla in Kendrapara district for a few days. While the petitioner serves at Jharsuguda, the opposite party is working in Orissa High Court, Cuttack. After few days of marriage, both husband and wife went to their respective places of work and thereafter stayed separately and during holidays, they used to visit village Baripalla. It is however alleged by the petitioner-husband that from the very beginning, the opposite party avoided to keep physical relation with him and this continued for one year and thereafter, went to her matrimonial house and did not keep any further relationship with him. As such, both have been staying separately since 2014. On 30/1/2017, the petitioner sent an advocate's notice to the opposite party which was replied and an attempt was made for conciliation with the help of well-wishers from both sides, but the same failed. The petitioner- husband therefore, filed a petition under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce in the court of Judge, Family Court, Cuttack citing the grounds of cruelty and desertion which was registered as CP No. 654/2017. The said case was decreed ex-parte vide order dtd. 26/12/2018 granting a decree of divorce, since the opposite party had failed to appear despite sufficient service of notice. Subsequently, an application was filed by opposite party under Order 9, Rule 13 of CPC being CMA No. 6 of 2019 for setting aside the ex-parte decree, which is presently pending. While the matter stood thus, the opposite party-wife filed the proceedings in question, i.e., Criminal Proceeding No. 110/2020 before the Judge, Family Court, Bhadrak claiming maintenance under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved, the petitioner-husband has approached this Court seeking quashment of the aforesaid Criminal Proceeding on the ground that the Family Court at Bhadrak lacks territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

(3.) Heard Ms. Mina Kumari Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. U.C. Dora, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party.