PARAMJIT SINGH Vs. HARMINDER KOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under section 561 -A Cr.P.C has been preferred with a prayer to quash criminal complaint No. 36 titled Smt. Harminder Kour and anr. v. Paramjit Singh under section 488 Cr.P.C and the proceedings initiated thereunder vide order dated 29.10.2003 by virtue of which the learned Ist. Addl. Munsiff (Forest) Magistrate, Jammu, has issued process against the petitioner.

(2.) ACCORDING to the averments made in the petition, the petitioner and respondent No.1 were married in November, 1998 in Delhi and after the marriage, they lived as husband and wife in the matrimonial home at Jail Road, Delhi. It is further stated that respondent No.1, in the absence of the petitioner, left her matrimonial home on 8.5.2002 and came to her parental house at Jammu. The petitioner, despite his best efforts, could not succeed to bring her back. Even the efforts made by the family members of the petitioner and relatives, besides common friends, to pursue the respondent to return to her matrimonial home, did not materialize. This led the petitioner to file a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, in the court at Delhi in August, 2003. In order to pressurize the petitioner to dissuade from proceedings under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in Delhi, the respondent preferred a petition under Section 488 Cr.P.C, claiming maintenance in the court of Ist Addl. Munsiff, Forest Magistrate, Jammu. Cognizance was taken by the learned magistrate and process was issued against the petitioner vide order dated 29.10.2003.

(3.) THE sole ground taken by the petitioner is that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Delhi and at present is residing at Delhi. He has last resided with respondent No. 1 at Delhi and has never stayed in Jammu with the respondent, after his marriage. The Magistrate has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition for maintenance, in view of a clear bar under section 488 (8) Cr.P.C, which provides that proceedings under this section may be taken against any person in any district where he resides or is, or where he last resided with his wife, or, as the case may be, the mother of the illegitimate child, and, as such, petitioner contended that proceedings under section 488 and the process issued against the petitioner deserves to be quashed.