Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Sangeeta W/o Bapu Lamani and her three minor children, filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) before the Family Court, Dharwad, seeking maintenance from the respondent, Bapu S/o Somappa Lamani. The Family Court raised an office objection regarding territorial jurisdiction, noting that the address shown in the cause title and the documents produced by the petitioners did not tally. Without conducting any inquiry, the learned Judge of the Family Court accepted the objection and returned the petition to the petitioners for presentation before the proper jurisdictional court. Aggrieved by this order dated 05.11.2020, the petitioners filed the present revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. The High Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, noted that the respondent was served but did not appear. The court observed that although the petitioners had not produced relevant documents to prove their residence at Dharwad, the first petitioner had filed an affidavit stating that she was residing at Dharwad. The High Court held that the Family Court ought to have conducted an inquiry into the residence of the wife and children before rejecting the petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. Relying on the provisions of Section 126 Cr.P.C., which allows a wife to file a maintenance petition at the place where she resides, the court found that the Family Court's order was unsustainable. Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the impugned order, and remitted the matter back to the Family Court, Dharwad, for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The court directed the Family Court to conduct an inquiry into the residence of the petitioners and then decide the petition on merits.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Maintenance - Territorial Jurisdiction - Section 125 Cr.P.C., Section 126 Cr.P.C. - The Family Court rejected the petition for maintenance on the ground that the address shown in the cause title and documents did not tally, raising a jurisdiction issue. The High Court held that the Family Court ought to have conducted an inquiry into the residence of the wife and children before returning the petition. The wife's affidavit stating her residence at Dharwad was sufficient to establish jurisdiction under Section 126 Cr.P.C., which allows a wife to file a petition where she resides. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Family Court was justified in rejecting the maintenance petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction without conducting a proper inquiry into the residence of the petitioners.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the impugned order dated 05.11.2020 passed by the Family Court, Dharwad, in Crl. Misc. No.145/2020, and remitted the matter back to the Family Court, Dharwad, for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The Family Court was directed to conduct an inquiry into the residence of the petitioners and then decide the petition on merits.
Law Points
- Territorial jurisdiction under Section 126 Cr.P.C. is determined by the residence of the wife at the time of application
- not the husband's residence
- Family Court must conduct an inquiry before rejecting a petition on jurisdiction grounds
- Affidavit evidence can establish residence for jurisdiction purposes.
Case Details
2022 LawText (KAR) (07) 15
Sangeeta W/o Bapu Lamani, Kaveri D/o Bapu Lamani, Lokesh S/o Bapu Lamani, Kalpana D/o Bapu Lamani (petitioners 2-4 minors represented by natural mother)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Revision petition against order of Family Court rejecting maintenance petition on ground of territorial jurisdiction.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to set aside the order dated 05.11.2020 of the Family Court, Dharwad, which returned the maintenance petition for lack of territorial jurisdiction, and to direct the Family Court to hear the petition on merits.
Filing Reason
The Family Court raised an objection that the address shown in the cause title and documents did not tally, leading to rejection of the petition on jurisdiction grounds without proper inquiry.
Previous Decisions
The Family Court, Dharwad, by order dated 05.11.2020 in Crl. Misc. No.145/2020, accepted the office objection and returned the petition to the petitioners for presentation before the proper jurisdictional court.
Issues
Whether the Family Court was justified in rejecting the maintenance petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction without conducting an inquiry into the residence of the petitioners.
Whether the affidavit filed by the wife stating her residence at Dharwad is sufficient to establish jurisdiction under Section 126 Cr.P.C.
Submissions/Arguments
The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the Family Court ought to have conducted an inquiry into the residence of the wife and children before returning the petition, and that the wife's affidavit was sufficient to establish jurisdiction under Section 126 Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 126 Cr.P.C., a wife can file a maintenance petition at the place where she resides. The Family Court must conduct an inquiry into the residence of the applicant before rejecting the petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. An affidavit by the wife stating her residence is sufficient to establish prima facie jurisdiction, and the court should not dismiss the petition without giving an opportunity to prove residence.
Judgment Excerpts
The Family court raised an objection with regard to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the address shown in the cause title and the documents produced by the petitioners do not tally and therefore, the office objection was accepted by the learned Judge of the Family Court and returned the petition to the petitioner for presentation of the same before the jurisdictional Court.
In this matter, though relevant documents have not been produced by the petitioners to say that they are residing at Dharwad, however, the petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that, she is residing at Dharwad.
In that view of the matter, the Family Court ought to have conducted an inquiry with regard to the residence of the wife and children and thereafter, proceed to decide the petition on merits.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed Crl. Misc. No.145/2020 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Dharwad, seeking maintenance. The Family Court raised an office objection regarding territorial jurisdiction and, by order dated 05.11.2020, returned the petition for presentation before the proper court. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present revision petition (RPFC No. 100043 of 2020) before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, under Section 115 CPC read with Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The High Court heard the matter and allowed the revision petition on 07.07.2022, remitting the case back to the Family Court for fresh consideration.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 125, 126
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 115
- Family Courts Act, 1984: 19(4)
