Rajinder Parshad Sharma vs Shashi Sharma

V.S. Aggarwal, J.—The only question that comes up for consideration in the present revision petition directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, dated 27.7.1993, is as to whether the Court at Jalandhar has the jurisdiction to entertain the petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C.

The facts are not in controversy. Rajinder Parshad Sharma (petitioner) was married to Smt. Shashi Sharma in June, 1978 at Agra. In the year 1981, petition for divorce was filed by the petitioner on the ground of desertion. Decree of divorce itself was granted from 28.4.1989. Respondent filed the petition for maintenance on 18th May, 1989 at Jalandhar. In the petition, she alleged that the marriage was solemnized at Jalandhar and she lived with the petitioner at Jalandhar. She had also pleaded that after her father''s retirement, she had been living at Jalandhar. But when the respondent appeared as witness, she admitted in the Court that the marriage with the petitioner was not solemnized at Jalandhar.

The learned Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, in the face of her statement in the Court that her marriage with the petitioner was not solemnized at Jalandhar held that the Court at Jalandhar had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. It was concluded that it was not crystal clear that she was residing at Jalandhar. The respondent preferred revision petition in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jalandhar and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, held that if the respondent was residing at Jalandhar, even if temporarily, the Court at Jalandhar could entertain the petition. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, relied upon the statement of the respondent besides that of her father to conclude that they were residing in the Urban Estate, Jalandhar. Accordingly, the revision petition was allowed.

Aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, the present revision petition has been filed.

Though application had been filed by the respondent for permitting her to place on record certain documents, both the Counsels for the parties argued that the present revision petition be decided on its merits.

The purpose of provisions for claiming maintenance had been explained by the Supreme Court in the case of Jagir Kaur and Another Vs. Jaswant Singh, . The Supreme Court was construing the similar provisions in Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and held that the words used in the Code should be liberally construed because the persons seeking the remedy are ordinarily helpless persons. In paragraph 5 of the judgment, it was held as under:

"This in our view, has been designedly done by the Legislature to enable a discarded wife or a helpless child to get the much needed and urgent relief in one or other of the three forums convenient to them. The proceedings under this section are in the nature of civil proceedings, the remedy is a summary one and the person seeking that remedy, as we have pointed out, it ordinarily a helpless person. So the words should be liberally construed without doing any violence to the language."

It is in the light of this paragraph that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code have to be looked into. Sub-section (1) of Section 126, Cr.P.C. permits the wife to file petition u/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. even where she resides. The relevant provision is reproduced as under :

"126. Procedure.--(1) Proceedings u/s 125 may be taken against any person in any district:--

(a) Where he is, or

(b) Where he or his wife resides, or."

Section 126(1) itself gives the jurisdiction to any Court within the District where the wife resides. The express language "in any district where the wife resides" cannot be given restricted meaning. The jurisdiction of the Magistrate in so far as Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is concerned is not restricted to the person against whom the order is claimed. It has to be given the liberal meaning and must give forum convenient to the beneficiaries for approaching to claim the relief.

It is true and not being disputed that the parties were not married in District Jalandhar, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, recorded the finding that the respondent was residing at Jalandhar. He took support in this regard from the evidence of the respondent that she was living with her father at Jalandhar and the testimony of Wishwa Mitter, P.W. 2 and Anoop Nayyar, P.W. 3, respectively. It is unfortunate that it had been pleaded that the marriage was solemnized at Jalandhar. Luckily it had also been mentioned by the respondent that she was living at Jalandhar after her father retired. Thus, once it is in evidence that respondent was residing previously at Jalandhar before, she filed the petition, the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly concluded that Section 12(1)(b), Cr.P.C. will come to her rescue.

I find no reason in the peculiar circumstances of the case to set aside the finding that when the respondent was residing at Jalandhar, then the Court at Jalandhar in view of Section 126(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. had the jurisdiction to entertain the petition. There is no ground to interfere.

For these reasons, the revision petition being without merit, fails and is dismissed.