Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, including the husband and his relatives, filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash the proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.15/2014 pending before the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubli. The respondent-wife had filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC at Hubli. The petitioners contended that the husband resided in Bangalore, where he worked as an engineer, and the parties last resided together in Bangalore. Therefore, the Hubli court had no jurisdiction to entertain the maintenance application. The court, after hearing both sides, agreed with the petitioners. It held that under Section 125 CrPC, the application must be filed where the husband resides or where the parties last resided together. The wife's place of residence after separation is not a valid basis for jurisdiction. Consequently, the proceedings were quashed, and the petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Maintenance - Jurisdiction - Section 125 CrPC - The wife filed a maintenance application at Hubli, but the husband resided in Bangalore and the parties last resided together in Bangalore. The court held that the Hubli court lacked jurisdiction as the wife's place of residence after separation is not a valid ground for filing under Section 125 CrPC. The proceedings were quashed. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.15/2014 under Section 125 CrPC can be maintained at Hubli when the husband resides in Bangalore and the parties last resided together in Bangalore.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.15/2014 on the file of I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubli, are quashed.
Law Points
- Section 125 CrPC
- jurisdiction
- place of residence
- maintenance
- quashing of proceedings
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (02) 43
Criminal Petition No.101416/2014
V.S. Kalasurmath (for petitioners), Gourishankar Mot (for respondent)
Prakash S/o Murigeppa Hasabi and others
Sarita D/o Mallikarjun Kapase
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of Crl.Misc.No.15/2014 pending before I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubli.
Filing Reason
The respondent-wife filed a maintenance application at Hubli, but the husband resides in Bangalore and the parties last resided together in Bangalore, thus Hubli court lacks jurisdiction.
Issues
Whether the Hubli court has jurisdiction to entertain the wife's maintenance application under Section 125 CrPC when the husband resides in Bangalore and the parties last resided together in Bangalore.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the husband resides in Bangalore and the parties last resided together in Bangalore, so Hubli court has no jurisdiction.
Respondent argued that the wife resides in Hubli and thus the application is maintainable there.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 125 CrPC, the application for maintenance must be filed where the husband resides or where the parties last resided together. The wife's place of residence after separation is not a valid ground for jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioners invoking section 482 of Cr.P.C., prayed this Court to quash the proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.15/2014, on the file of I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi, vide Annexure-B and to allow the petition.
Procedural History
The respondent-wife filed Crl.Misc.No.15/2014 under Section 125 CrPC before the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubli. The petitioners filed this criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash those proceedings.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 125, 482
