Saturday, 26 January 2019

Whether wife can file application for maintenance U/S 125 of CRPC at any place where she is residing?

In terms of Section 126(1)(b), the respondent would be entitled

to maintain a petition both at the place where the husband is residing
as also at the place where she is residing. Section 126(1) does not
contemplate a permanent place of residence. Even a place where the
wife is for the time being residing would confer jurisdiction on such a
court, where she is residing. However, residence temporarily acquired
solely for conferring jurisdiction would not satisfy the requirements of
Section 126(1).
 Keeping in view of the fact that the wife can maintain a petition
at any place where she is residing and the fact that the respondent has
placed on record copies of her Aadhar Card, Voter ID Card, which
reflect the address of Delhi, I am of the view that the Trial Court has

not committed any error in the impugned order by rejecting the application of the petitioner holding that the Trial Court has territorial jurisdiction.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
 Judgment delivered on: 21.01.2019
 CRL.REV.P. 476/2018

SACHIN GUPTA  Vs RACHANA GUPTA 

CORAM:-
 MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA



1. Petitioner impugns judgment dated 13.02.2018, whereby, the
application of the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, impugning
proceedings initiated by the Respondent under section 125 Cr.P.C. on
the ground of territorial jurisdiction, has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner in
all proceedings except in these proceedings has mentioned her

residential address as Aligarh and has even filed a transfer petition
before the Allahabad High Court seeking transfer of the petition for
dissolution of marriage from Meerut to Aligarh.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner is
residing in Delhi and has filed the petition in Delhi as she is living
with her brother in Delhi. It is submitted that she has sought transfer
of these proceedings from Meerut to Aligarh as Aligarh is her parental
home but she has been residing in Delhi since 2008.
4. Section 126 (1) Cr.P.C. lays down as under:-
“126. Procedure.
(1) Proceedings under section 125 may be taken 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.”
5. Section 126(1) Cr.P.C. stipulates that the proceedings under
125 Cr.P.C. may be filed in any district where the respondent resides
or where his wife resides or where the respondent last resided with his
wife, or as the case may be, with the mother of the illegitimate child.
6. In terms of Section 126(1)(b), the respondent would be entitled

to maintain a petition both at the place where the husband is residing
as also at the place where she is residing. Section 126(1) does not
contemplate a permanent place of residence. Even a place where the
wife is for the time being residing would confer jurisdiction on such a
court, where she is residing. However, residence temporarily acquired
solely for conferring jurisdiction would not satisfy the requirements of
Section 126(1).
7. In the present case, Respondent has placed on record copies of
her Voter ID card issued in 2008, Aadhar Card as also the income tax
returns wherein she has mentioned her address as that of Paschim
Vihar, Delhi. Though the income tax return has been filed with the
Assessing Officer at Aligarh, the address mentioned is that of Delhi.
It is explained by the respondent that the Assessing Officer continues
to be in Aligarh Circle whereas her residence is in Delhi. The
respondent is stated to be today unemployed and is not in a position to
maintain herself.
8. Trial Court has noticed that the Petitioner husband is resident of
Meerut and in terms of connectivity and distance Delhi is much closer
to Aligarh.
9. Keeping in view of the fact that the wife can maintain a petition
at any place where she is residing and the fact that the respondent has
placed on record copies of her Aadhar Card, Voter ID Card, which
reflect the address of Delhi, I am of the view that the Trial Court has

not committed any error in the impugned order by rejecting the application of the petitioner holding that the Trial Court has territorial jurisdiction.
10. In view of the above, I find no merit in the petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.
11. Order Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
JANUARY 21, 2019

Print Page

No comments:

Post a comment