DAWALSAB v. KHAJASAB

Judgment

10 S.C.R. 1006 DAWALSAB v. KHAJASAB (Criminal Appeal No. 1236 of 2009) JULY 15, 2009 A B [ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] Family Courts Act, 1984 - ss. 7 and 8 - Petition filed by father under s. 125 CrPC for monthly maintenance from son c before Family Court, Bijapur - Son working in Syndagi - Whether the Family Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition - Held, Yes - Syndagi also falls within Bijapur district - Under s.126(1 )(a) CrPC, jurisdiction for filing any proceeding under s. 125 would be in Bijapur itself where D Family Court for the district is situated - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 125 and 126(1). Appellant is the father of the respondent. He filed petition under Section 125 CrPC. for payment of monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- from the respondent on the ground that having become old and not having any source of income, he was unable to maintain himself, whereas the respondent was employed in Anjuman College, Syndagi and was well off. The petition was dismissed by the Family Court, Bijapur on the ground that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the petition which ought to have been filed in the Court within whose jurisdiction, the appellant resided. The revision petition filed by appellant was dismissed by the High Court. In appeal to this Court, it was contended that the High Court proceeded on an erroneous basis in interpreting the provisions of Section 126(1)(a) Cr.P.C. without taking note of the very initial wordings of Section 126(1) Cr.P.C. which provides that proceedings under 1006 E F G H '\ ...., ) . t )._ ~ . l''---1 . ·'( ... >f - ~ DAWALSAB v. KHAJASAB & ANR. 1007 Section 125 Cr.P.C. may be taken against any person in A any district and qualifies clauses {a), (b) and (c) thereof. It was submitted that in the instant case, having regard to the provisions of Sections 7 and 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the only forum in which application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. could have been B filed by the appellant was before the Family Court of the district which was situated at Bijapur and since Syndagi also fell within the district of Bijapur and was subject to the jurisdiction of the Family Court at Bijapur, the petition had been rightly filed before the Family Court. It was c contended that the High Court misconstrued the provisions of Section 126(1) CrPC without taking note of the provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1984. Allowing the appeal, the Court D HELD:1.1. The wordings have been interpreted by the High Court and the Family Court to mean that the petition ought to have been filed in Syndagi where the respondent was working. Both the Family Court Judge and the High Court appear to have missed the fact that E an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has to be taken against any person in any district where the person is. In the instant case, Syndagi also falls within Bijapur district. Accordingly, under Section 126(1)(a) Cr.P.C., the jurisdiction for filing any proceeding under Section 125 F would be in Bijapur itself where the Family Court for the district is situated and since Syndagi is within the said district. [Para 8) [1011-B-D] .. 1

1.2. The petition had been rightly filed before the Family Court at Bijapur, which is situated in Bijapur, since under Section 8(b) of the Act the magistrate's jurisdiction under Chapter IX Cr.P.C. has been excluded. Reading the opening words of Section 126(1) Cr.P.C. with Section 7(2)(a) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, it is quite clear that G H ) . 1008 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R. A it was the Family Court at Bijapur which had the jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the appellant under Section 125 Cr.P.C. [Para 9] [1012-D-E] 8

1.3. The orders passed by the Family Court and the High Court are set aside and the matter is remanded to the Family Court at Bijapur for fresh consideration in accordance with law. [Para 10] [1012-F-G]