Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 500 (AP)

M. Shobhana v. K. Satya Prabhu

2010-06-21

SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

body2010
Judgment 1. The petitioning wife in M.C. No.47 of 2006 on the file of Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of JHCBBC-cum- Additional Family Court, Hyderabad is the petitioner in this revision petition. She filed maintenance case against her husband in the lower Court in the year 2006. After four years, the lower Court mercilessly dismissed her petition on the ground that Hyderabad Court has no jurisdiction and that Secunderabad Court is having jurisdiction. This is highly improper. 2. The lower Court failed to notice basic provision under Section 126 (1) Cr.P.C. relating to procedure to be followed by a Court dealing with a maintenance case, be it a Magistrate or be it a Family Court. 3. Section 126 (1) Cr.P.C. reads as follows: "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." 4. Thus, the wife, who is resident of Nallakunta of Hyderabad has got legal liberty to file maintenance case against her husband, who is resident of Secunderabad, in any Family Court in the Urban District of Hyderabad, whether it is before the Family Court, Hyderabad or before the Family Court Secunderabad. This Court finds that the Additional Family Court, Hyderabad has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain M.C. No.47 of 2006 filed by the petitioner before it. Order passed by the lower Court with regard to the territorial jurisdiction is erroneous. 5. The first respondent's counsel pointed out that under Section 3(2) of the Family Courts Act, the State Government in consultation with the High Court, specify local limits of the area to which the jurisdiction of a Family Court shall extend. Not only to a Family Court, but also even to a Court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, such notifications are issued by the State Government or the High Court under the provisions of Cr.P.C. That will not over-ride the facility given to a petitioner under Section 126(1) Cr.P.C. to file a petition for maintenance in any Court in that district. Section 3(2) of the Family Courts Act has no relevance in deciding whether a maintenance case was instituted in a Court having territorial jurisdiction. Section 3(2) of the Family Courts Act has no relevance in deciding whether a maintenance case was instituted in a Court having territorial jurisdiction. It is only Section 126(1) Cr.P.C. which governs the situation in the case of institution of a maintenance case. 6. In the result, the revision petition is allowed setting aside order dated 25-11-2009 passed by the lower Court; and directing the lower Court to restore M.C. No.47 of 2006 to its file and to dispose of the same on merits.