JUDGMENT M.L. TAHALIYANI, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel Mr. Muhammed Ateeque for the applicant and learned Counsel Mr. P.H. Khobragade for the non-applicant. 2. Admit . Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The applicant has taken exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nagpur in Petition No.E259/ 2008 on 13 th July, 2011. The Family Court, by the impugned judgment and order, had directed the applicant to pay a sum of Rs.800/per month to nonapplicant No.1 and a sum of Rs.700/per month to nonapplicant No.2 by way of maintenance. Nonapplicant Nos.1 and 2 are wife and son respectively of the applicant. 4. An application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code was filed by the non-applicants before the Family Court. Evidence of the non-applicants was recorded and the application was posted for recording of evidence of the applicant. It appears from the roznama that the applicant did not adduce any evidence and therefore, the application was posted for judgment. On 5 th July, 2011 learned Counsel for both the parties were present before the Family Court when the case was closed for judgment. It appears from the record that the applicant had challenged the jurisdiction of the Family Court at Nagpur to entertain the application of the non-applicants for grant of maintenance. In support of his contention that the Family Court would not have jurisdiction in the matrimonial dispute between the applicant and the non-applicants, the applicant had produced a xerox copy of the Notification issued by the Law and Judiciary Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai on 13 th February, 1996 vide Exh.50. According to said Notification, territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court, Nagpur extended upto (i) the area comprising the Municipal Corporation of the City of Nagpur and (ii) the area under the jurisdiction of the Kamptee Cantonment Board. 5. Learned Counsel Mr. Ateeque for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was not given proper opportunity of being heard inasmuch as his evidence was not recorded. It was submitted by Mr. Ateeque that the applicant is illiterate person and his Counsel did not guide him properly. It was submitted that the learned Counsel for the applicant appearing before the Family Court should have prayed for adjournment on 5 th July, 2011 for adducing evidence on behalf of the applicant. It was submitted by Mr. Ateeque that the applicant is illiterate person and his Counsel did not guide him properly. It was submitted that the learned Counsel for the applicant appearing before the Family Court should have prayed for adjournment on 5 th July, 2011 for adducing evidence on behalf of the applicant. Since it was not done by the learned Counsel for the applicant, the case was closed for judgment. Apart from this, it was further submitted that the Notification issued by the Government on 13 th February, 1996 which is Exh.50 of the record of the Family Court clearly shows that the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court extends to the local limits of Municipal Corporation and Kamptee Cantonment Board. The learned Counsel has further submitted that the applicant and non-applicant No.1 had been residing at Mohgaon (Dhole) after the marriage. It was further submitted that after the separation, the applicant continued to stay at the same place and nonapplicant No.1 went to her parents' house at Kinhala Satgaon. Her son is taking education in the same village. 6. The learned Counsel for the non-applicant has submitted that non-applicant No.1 has been staying at Nagpur with her maternal aunt and therefore, as per Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 126 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Family Court, Nagpur will have jurisdiction to hear and decide the application in question. Learned Counsel Mr. Ateeque has invited my attention to paras 11 and 12 of the impugned judgment and order, particularly para 12 and has submitted that non-applicant No.1 had admitted in her cross-examination that her child was residing with her mother at Satgaon and he was taking education in the Primary School. Nonapplicant No.1 has further admitted that since the separation till the date of filing of application for maintenance, she was residing with her parents at Satgaon. 7. As such, it is abundantly clear from the order of the Family Court that non-applicant No.1 had admitted in her evidence that she had been staying at Satgaon and not at Nagpur. However, the objection raised by the applicant was turned down on the ground that the applicant should have taken objection at the earliest opportunity available to him. Learned Counsel Mr. Khobragade has submitted that the applicant had stated the Nagpur address of nonapplicant No.1 while filing his written statement before the Family Court. However, the objection raised by the applicant was turned down on the ground that the applicant should have taken objection at the earliest opportunity available to him. Learned Counsel Mr. Khobragade has submitted that the applicant had stated the Nagpur address of nonapplicant No.1 while filing his written statement before the Family Court. It was also pointed out that a notice for restitution of conjugal rights was also addressed to non-applicant No.1 at Nagpur address. From the record and proceedings and the order of Family Court, it appears that non-applicant No.1 was temporarily staying with her maternal aunt and there was no evidence or finding of the Family Court that non-applicant No.1 was residing at Nagpur within the meaning of Clause(b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As far as the view of the Family Court with regard to the objection is concerned, it may be stated here that if the court lacks the jurisdiction, the consent of parties or inadvertence on behalf of any of the parties in raising objection at appropriate time would not give jurisdiction to the Court. In this regard, I may refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitinbhai Saevatilal Shah and another vs. Manubhai Manjibhai Panchal and another reported at 2011(9) SCC 638 . It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that “ It is well settled that no amount of consent by the parties can confer jurisdiction where there exist none, on a court of law nor can they divest a court of jurisdiction which it possesses under the law.” 8. As such even if the objection was not raised by the applicant before the Family Court at an earliest stage, it was necessary for the Court itself to see as to whether it has jurisdiction to entertain and try the application submitted by the non-applicants. In this regard, it may be noted here that though a pursis Exh.50 was filed along with xerox copy of the Notification notifying the territorial limits of Family Court at Nagpur, the learned Judge has not given any finding in respect of objection raised along with a copy of Notification. It was the duty of the learned Judge, Family Court to refer to the said document and the contents thereof and give her finding in that regard. 9. It was the duty of the learned Judge, Family Court to refer to the said document and the contents thereof and give her finding in that regard. 9. As such the impugned judgment and order passed by the Family Court will have to be set aside. The Family Court will have to examine the whole issue afresh when it will have to give its finding as to whether it has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application. Secondly, at the same time the Family Court will have to consider the prayer of the applicant to give him an opportunity of being heard, it means to adduce evidence in support of his case. 10. In the Circumstances, I pass the following order. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nagpur on 13th July, 2011 in Petition No. E259/ 2008 is set aside. The record and proceedings shall be sent back to the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nagpur. The parties shall appear before the Family Court, Nagpur on 4th March, 2013. The applicant will be at liberty to file an application for adducing evidence in support of his case. The said application shall be decided by the learned Judge, Family Court, Nagpur on merits. The applicant will be at liberty to file an application to challenge the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court. The Family Court will be at liberty to decide this issue as a preliminary issue and pass order thereon. The Family Court is not prevented from deciding the said issue finally while deciding the application on merits. The application accordingly stands disposed of.