SARISHTA DEVI Vs. KESHO DASS SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole controversy involved in this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the New Code) is whether the Court under whose territorial jurisdiction the wife resides, can entertain proceedings under Section 125 of the New Code as provided in Section 126, sub-section (1), clause (b) of this Code.

(2.) The brief resume of facts relevant for the disposal of this petition is that Mst. Sarishta Devi was married to Kesho Dass Sharma, respondent, according to Hindu religious rites at village Bhagwanpur located in tehsil Pathankot of District Gurdaspur. Thereafter both the parties resided as husband wife in district Kathus in Jammu & Kashmir State. The husband refused and neglected to maintain his wife, which resulted in her residing with her parents at village Bhagwanpur in tehsil Pathankot. She filed an application under Section 125 of the New Code against her husband claiming Rs. 500/- per month as maintenance allowance contending that her husband has refused to maintain her. The respondent resisted this application before the trial Court on merits as well as on the point of lack of territorial jurisdiction in the Court at Pathankot to entertain such application. The trial Court dismissed the application on merits only without expressing any opinion on the point of jurisdiction. The petitioner then went in revision before the Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his impugned order dated 25-1-1990 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Court at Pathankot to entertain such application besides holding that the provisions of Section 125 of the New Code being not applicable to the State of Jammu & Kashmir, such application was not maintainable. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, on merits held that the husband has refused and neglected to maintain the wife and that she was forced to live with her parents. Being aggrieved against the said order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge pertaining to lack of jurisdiction the petitioner has filed this petition for quashment of the same.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the record.