ORDER 1. Challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to an order dated 2.9.2015 passed in a proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Code’), whereby Principal Judge, Family Court, Sagar has rejected the preliminary objection raised on behalf of petitioner as to maintainability of the proceedings at Sagar. 2. Earlier, petitioner had approached this Court vide Writ Petition No.6565/2015 being aggrieved of order dated 20.3.2015, whereby objection preferred by the petitioner with regard to maintainability of proceedings before the Family Court at Sagar was dismissed. A Coordinate Bench of this Court while taking into consideration that the objection raised by the petitioner was dismissed in a perfunctory manner by the Family Court, proceeded to set aside the order and remitted the matter for reconsideration of said objection by order dated 24.7.2015. 3. On reconsideration, Family Court, Sagar passed the impugned order holding that the proceedings brought in the Family Court at Sagar is well within its jurisdiction on a finding that the respondent-wife was residing at Sagar when the application under section 125 of the Code was filed. Reasons which find mention are in the following terms – **izdj.k esa ;g Lohd`r gS fd vkosfndk fu'kk vukosnd iz'kkar dh ifRu gS rFkk nksuksa dk fookg lkxj esa gqvk gS ;g rks Li"V gS fd vkosfndk ewyr% lkxj dh jgus okyh gSA vukosnd }kjk vkosfndk ds vkosnu izLrqr djus ds le; cSaxyksj esa jgus ds dqN nLrkost izLrqr fd, x, gSA ftuds [kaMu esa vkosfndk us vius tcko esa ;g dgk gS fd mldh iq+=h dk ,Mfe'ku cSaxyksj ds Ldwy esa t:j gqvk gS] ysfdu og fu;fer Nk=k ugha gSA vfxze tekur ds vkosnu esa cSaxyksj ds irs ds laca/k esa vkosfndk us dgk gS fd ml le; og cSaxyksj esa fuokl djrh FkhA izdj.k dh bl LVst ij ek= nLrkostksa ds vk/kkj ij fuokl ds laca/k esa dksbZ fu'pk;d fu"d"kZ ugha fudkyk tk ldrk gSA laca/k [kjkc gksus ij ek;ds esa vkdj jgus dks vLokHkkfod ugha dgk tk ldrk gSA vr% vfHkys[k dks ns[krs gq, ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk gS fd vkosfndk vkosnu fnukad dks lkxj esa fuokl ugha djrh FkhA vr% {ks=kf/kdkj ds laca/k esa vukosnd dh vkifÙk dks fujLr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk izdj.k dks U;k;ky; ds {ks=kkf/kdkj esa gksuk ik;k tkrk gSA** 4. Section 125 of the Code envisages – 125. Section 125 of the Code envisages – 125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. (1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or (c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct: Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means. Explanation.- For the purposes of this Chapter ;- (a) “minor” means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875); is deemed not to have attained his majority; (b) “wife” includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried. ..... .” 5. Section 126(1) of the Code which is relevant for the purpose of this case, stipulates : 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." 6. The word 'reside' came to be considered in Mst. Jagir Kaur v. Jaswant Singh [ AIR 1963 SC 1521 ], in the context of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 for entertaining the petition of a wife for maintenance, wherein their Lordships were pleased to hold :- “6. …. The word 'reside' came to be considered in Mst. Jagir Kaur v. Jaswant Singh [ AIR 1963 SC 1521 ], in the context of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 for entertaining the petition of a wife for maintenance, wherein their Lordships were pleased to hold :- “6. …. The said meaning, therefore, takes in both a permanent dwelling as well as a temporary living in a place. It is, therefore, capable of different meanings, including domicile in the strictest and the most technical sense ….” 7. In Vijay Kumar Prasad v. State of Bihar [(2004)5 SCC 196], it was held that the proceedings under section 125 are civil in nature. It was noted as follows :- "14. The basic distinction between section 488 of the old Code and section 126 of the Code is that section 126 has essentially enlarged the venue of proceedings for maintenance so as to move the place where the wife may be residing on the date of application. The change was thought necessary because of certain observations by the Law Commission, taking note of the fact that often deserted wives are compelled to live with their relatives far away from the place where the husband and wife last resided together. As noted by this Court in several cases, proceedings under section 125 of the Code are of civil nature. Unlike clauses (b) and (c) of section 126(1) an application by the father or the mother claiming maintenance has to be filed where the person from whom maintenance is claimed lives." 8. In the case at hand, the facts as borne out from record establish that when the application under section 125 of the Code was preferred by respondent-wife, she was residing at Sagar. The findings when tested on the anvil of cogent material facts on record, cannot be faulted with as would warrant any indulgence. 9. Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed. No costs. Ved Prakash Nema for petitioner; Anil Khare with Abhinav Shrivastava for respondent.