Gangabai Satnami vs Chetram Satnami

Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.—This revision has been directed against the impugned order dated 20.9.2004 passed in Criminal Revision No. 188/2004 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Janjgir Champa (C.G) arising out of the order dated 12.12.2004 passed in M.J.C. (Criminal) No. 59/2003 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Janjgir.

The admitted facts of the case are that the non-applicant herein namely Chetram is the son of the applicant and is working in Amlai Collieriery, Distt. Shahdol (M.P). The applicant (mother) is residing in village Kharod, P.S. Shivri Narayan, Distt. Janjgir Champa. She filed an application before the J.M.F.C., Janjgir, for grant of maintenance against the son u/s 125 of Cr. P.C. along with an application for interim maintenance. This matter came up for hearing before the Magistrate on 12.2.2004. On the said date, the Magistrate decided the application for interim maintenance and ultimately directed the non-applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000 p.m. as the amount of interim maintenance to the applicant. Against the said order passed by the Magistrate, a criminal revision bearing No. 188/2004 was filed by the non-applicant and the aforesaid criminal revision was allowed by the Sessions Judge holding that since the non-applicant does not reside in the local limits of jurisdiction of the Court of J.M.F.C. Janjgir Champa (C.G) and he admittedly resides in the local limits of jurisdiction of a Court falling in the State of M.P., the Court at Janjgir Champa was having no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed u/s 125 of Cr. P.C. by the applicant (mother), therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that as an effect of passing of the impugned order in revision, now the proceedings before the Magistrate have been dismissed and in fact, the application filed by the applicant, mother, has been dismissed for want of jurisdiction before the Court of Magistrate. He further submitted that the aforesaid order passed by the Sessions Judge is not in accordance with law as the applicant, who is the mother, was entitled to file an application for maintenance u/s 125, Cr. P.C. before a Court within whose limits of local jurisdiction she was residing and the learned Sessions Judge erred in law in holding that such an application was not maintainable before the said Court at Janjgir Champa.

I have heard learned Counsel for the applicant at length.

Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. Section 125(1) of the Code provides that if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, unable to maintain herself, or his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter), who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of the First Class, may upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife, or such children, father or mother, at such monthly rate within the prescribed limits, as such Magistrate, thinks fit and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct.

A proviso is also added that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in Clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means,

An explanation has also been added to this Sub-section giving definition of various words for the purpose of this chapter.

Section 126 of the Code lays down the procedure regarding the proceedings u/s 125 of Cr. P.C.

Sub-section (1) of Section 126 is quoted as under:

Procedure-(1) Proceedings u/s 125 may betaken against any person in any district-

(a) where he is, or

(b) where he or his wife resides, or

(c) where he last resided with his wife, or as the case may be, with the mother of the illegitimate child.

The Supreme Court while dealing with the matter of Vijay Kumar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and Others, , held that the benefit given to the wife and the children to initiate proceedings at the place where they reside is not given to the parents. A bare reading of Section 126 makes it clear that the parents cannot be placed on the same pedestal as that of the wife or the children for the purpose of Section 126 of the Code. The basic distinction between Section 488 of the old Code and Section 126 of the Code of 1974 (sic. 1973) is that Section 126 has essentially enlarged the venue of proceedings for maintenance so as to move the place where the wife may be residing at the date of application. The change was thought necessary because of certain observations by the Law Commission, taking note of the fact that after deserted wives are compelled to live with their relatives far away from the place where the husband and wife last resided together. The Supreme Court further held that an application by the father or the mother claiming maintenance has to be filed where the person from whom maintenance is claimed lives. The expression ''is'' in Section 126(1)(a) cannot be given the same meaning as the word "reside" or the expression "the last resided". It connotes in the context the presence or the existence of the persons in the District where the proceedings are taken. It is wider in its concept than the word ''resides'' and what matters is his physical presence at the particular point of time. The Supreme Court also held in the aforesaid matter that where the sot? was practisng in Patna High Court at the time of presentation of petition at Siwan by his father claiming maintenance, the son could not have been physically present at Siwan, whatever extended meaning may be given to the expression '' is'' and by holding so, the Supreme Court laid down that in view of the above, the Court at Siwan would have not jurisdiction to deal with the petition filed by the father at Siwan.

In view of the above principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case Vijay Kumar Prasad (supra), it is clear that the parents may file an application for grant of maintenance u/s 125 of the Cr. P.C. in the Court in whose local jurisdiction the person from whom maintenance is claimed lives.

I do not find any irregularity in the order passed by the Sessions Judge as the order seems to be well founded. The petition has no merit, the same is dismissed.