JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State. 2. The present revision application is only confined with regard to the jurisdiction expect whether the Court of Principal Judge (Family Court), Gandhinagar has the jurisdiction to decide the application. 3. In the present revision application, the applicant has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs; “(A) This Honourable Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 04.04.2016 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gandhinagar in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 38 of 2013 (old Case No. 793 of 2007). (B) To call for the record and proceedings of the Family Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 38 of 2013 (old Case No. 793 of 2007) for effective adjudication in the interest of justice.” 4. By the judgment and order dated 04.04.2016, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gandhinagar has passed the judgment in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 38 of 2013 (Old No. 793 of 2007) filed under Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (the code) dismissing the application filed by the applicant for the reason that the same is not maintainable and observed that the applicant should have approached the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Himmatnagar, who has passed the order under Section 125 of the Code. It is also observed that the aforesaid order was further challenged before the Court of Sessions Judge, Himmatngar and the Sessions Judge, Himmatnagar had decreased an amount of maintenance from Rs.500/- to Rs.250/- and hence, the application, which is filed by the present applicant, who is residing at Gandhinagar would not be maintainable and the aforesaid application is required to be filed before the Court of Himmatnagar. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Shelat appearing for the applicant has invited the attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 126 of the Code and has submitted that the Family Court has fell in error in passing the aforesaid order. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Kailashben Arvindkumar Joshi, v. Arvindbhai Ratilal Joshi & Anr., 1985 (2) GLR 761 . He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Kailashben Arvindkumar Joshi, v. Arvindbhai Ratilal Joshi & Anr., 1985 (2) GLR 761 . He has submitted that as per the observations made by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the procedure provided in Section 126 of the Code is the only procedure applicable to the proceedings under Section 127 of the Code and there is no specific bar that the application for enhancement or alteration of maintenance award cannot be filed before the Court where the wife resides. In any set of circumstances, by giving interpretation to the provisions of Section 127 of the Code by holding that for modification or alteration, the wife is entitled to file application where she resides as provided under Section 126 of the Code, no violence is caused to the statutory provisions. Thus, he has submitted that the application filed by the applicant could not have been rejected by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Gandhinagar for the reasons that the same is barred by the jurisdiction. 6. Per contra learned advocate Mr. Chauhan appearing for the respondent No. 1 has submitted that in fact, there is no proof coming on record that the applicant is residing at Gandhinagar on the given address of the present application. He has further invited the attention of this Court to the earlier proceedings filed by the present applicant, wherein her address is shown at Village Pal, Himmatnagar where the marriage has been solemnized. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Chauhan appearing for the respondent No. 1 has invited the attention of this Court to the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court at Banswada, Rajasthan, wherein, by the judgment and decree dated 21.02.1998 passed in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 6 of 1995, the divorce had been ordered between the applicant and the respondent No.1 and the amount of Rs.500/- has been fixed for permanent alimony and maintenance. Thereafter, he has invited the attention of this court to the Exhibit No. 79 (Criminal Application No. 18 of 1996) filed by the applicant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Himmatnagar, wherein she has prayed for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Chauhan has submitted that the aforesaid application reflects that the applicant was stayed at village: Pal, Sabarkantha. 9. Learned advocate Mr. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Chauhan has submitted that the aforesaid application reflects that the applicant was stayed at village: Pal, Sabarkantha. 9. Learned advocate Mr. Chauhan has also further placed reliance on the order dated 07.02.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 246-247 of 2020 by the Apex Court and has submitted that in fact the respondent No. 2 is not liable to pay any amount of maintenance, in view of the earlier order passed by the Family Court at Rajasthan. 10. Learned advocate Mr. Chauhan has submitted that, in fact, as per Exhibit 61, the applicant had submitted her name figures in the voter list of Village Pal, which was issued in the year 2014. Thus, he has submitted that in fact, as per cross-examination, which was recorded in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 38 of 2013 (old No.793 of 2007), the applicant has admitted that the her name figures in the voter list of Village Pal. 11. Learned advocate Mr. Chauhan appearing for the respondent No.1 has further submitted that in fact, the evidence reveals that the applicant is not residing at Gandhinagar and she has earlier filed an application for enhancement of maintenance at Himmatnagar. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Chauhan that the aforesaid amount of maintenance was awarded at Rs.500/- was awarded and the same has been reduced to Rs.250/- in appeal filed before the Sessions Judge, Himmatnagar, hence, the application filed by the applicant under Section 127 of the Code seeking enhancement is required to be filed before the concerned Court at Himmatnagar, which is precisely observed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gandhinagar. 12. In response to the aforesaid submissions advanced by the learned advocate Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate Mr. Shelat has invited the attention of this Court to the written statement filed by the respondent No. 1, wherein, it is admitted by him that the applicant has her house at Gandhinagar in her own name. Learned advocate Mr. Shelat has further submitted that as per the Election Commission of India Identity Card, which is issued on 31st March, 2013, her address is shown as Gandhinagar, which is mentioned in Criminal Revision Application. 13. This Court has noticed that there are various litigations between the applicant and the respondent No. 1. Learned advocate Mr. Shelat has further submitted that as per the Election Commission of India Identity Card, which is issued on 31st March, 2013, her address is shown as Gandhinagar, which is mentioned in Criminal Revision Application. 13. This Court has noticed that there are various litigations between the applicant and the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 initially had filed Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 6 of 1995 seeking divorce under Section 13 the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the Act) on 04.04.1995 in the District Court, Banswada, Rajasthan. The same was allowed by decree of divorce was passed against the applicant by directing the respondent No. 1 to pay Rs. 500/- per month to the applicant till she remarries. The aforesaid order had became final since the Supreme Court has dismissed the Special Leave to appeal (Civil) CC-11181 of 2012, on 13.07.2012. The record reveals that the applicant had initially filed an application being Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 18 of 1996 for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Himmatnagar, on 25.01.1996 and the concerned Court i.e. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Himmatnagar had ordered to pay Rs.500/- per month to the applicant under Section 125 of the Code. The same was reduced to 250/- in revision application filed by the respondent No.1 before the Sessions Court, Himmatnagar. Thereafter, the applicant had preferred Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 137 of 2007, which was withdrawn by her. It is stated by the applicant that after the death of her father, she shifted at Gandhinagar and was residing with her brother and sister from 2006. The respondent No.1 has seriously doubted about her residence at Gandhinagar. 14. The present applicant has filed an application under Section 127 of the Code seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 38 of 2013 (old No.793 of 2007) which bears the address of Gandhinagar. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Gandhinagar has rejected her application on the ground that she has to approach the concerned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Himmatnagar who has passed the order under Section 125 of the Code. 15. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer the provisions of Sections 126 and 127 of the Code. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Gandhinagar has rejected her application on the ground that she has to approach the concerned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Himmatnagar who has passed the order under Section 125 of the Code. 15. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer the provisions of Sections 126 and 127 of the Code. Section 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. (2) All evidence in such proceedings shall be taken in the presence of the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made, or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader, and shall be recorded in the manner prescribed for summons-cases: Provided that if the Magistrate is satisfied that the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made is wilfully avoiding service, or wilfully neglecting to attend the Court, the Magistrate may proceed to hear and determine the case ex parte and any order so made may be set aside for good cause shown on an application made within three months from the date thereof subject to such terms including terms as to payment of costs to the opposite party as the Magistrate may think just and proper. (3) The Court in dealing with applications under Section 125 shall have the power to make such order as to costs as may be just. Section 127 Alteration in allowance. (1) On proof of a change in the circumstances of any person, receiving, under section 125 a monthly allowance, or ordered under the same section to pay a monthly allowance to his wife, child, father or mother, as case may be, the Magistrate may make such alteration in the allowance he thinks fit: Provided that if he increases the allowance, the monthly rate of five hundred rupees in the whole shall not be exceeded. (2) Where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be, vary the same accordingly. (2) Where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be, vary the same accordingly. (3) Where any order has been made under section 125 in favour of a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband, the Magistrate shall, if he is satisfied that- (a) the woman has, after the date of such divorce, remarried, cancel such order as from the date of her remarriage; (b) the woman has been divorced by her husband and that she has received, whether before or after the date of the said order, the whole of the sum which, under any customary or personal law applicable to the parties, was payable on such divorce, cancel such order,- (i) in the case where, such sum was paid before such order, from the date on Which such order was made, (ii) in any other case, from the date of expiry of the period, if any, for which maintenance has been actually paid by the husband by the woman; (c) the woman has obtained a divorce from her husband and that she had voluntarily surrendered her rights to maintenance after her divorce, cancel the order from the date thereof. (2) At the time of making any decree for the recovery of any maintenance or dowry by any person, to whom a monthly allowance has been ordered to be paid under section 125, the Civil Court shall take into account the sum which has been paid to, or recovered by, such person as monthly allowance in pursuance of the said order. 16. The Coordinate Bench of this Court while examining the aforesaid provisions of Sections 126 and 127 of the Code, in the case or Kailashben Arvindkumar Joshi (supra) has observed thus :- 7. The objects and reasons for amendment of Section 488 as recommended by the Law Commission are as under : Under Sub-section (8), the place where the wife resides after desertion by the husband is not material as regards the venue of the proceedings, though the place where the husband resides even temporarily is relevant; often deserted wives are compelled to live with their relative far away from the place where the husband and wife last resided together. They would be put to great harassment and expenditure Unless the venue of the proceedings is enlarged so as to include the place where they may be residing on the date of the application. "With reference to Sub-section (8) there is the following controversy. Is it sufficient if the husband resides in the district in which the proceedings are instituted must itself be one having jurisdiction over the place where the husband resides. The Bombay view is that a proceeding under Section 488 instituted in any competent Court within the district in which the husband resides, or is, or in which he last resided with his wife. This is also the Patna view and Kerala view. The Madras High Court has, however, taken a different view. In our opinion the Bombay view is correct, as the wording of the subsection does not seem to justify the addition of any further restriction. We think the language is clear and needs no amendment on this point. Now from these objects and reasons it is clear that to avoid the harassment to the deserted wives who are compelled to live with their relatives far away from the place where the wife and husband last resided together and also the expenditure, under Section 126(1)(b) it is provided that the wife is entitled to file an application where she resides. The aforesaid quotation, further says that the Bombay High Court has taken the view that the proceedings under Section 488 can be instituted in any competent Court within the district in which the husband resides and it was not necessary that the application should be filed only before the Magistrate at the place where the husband resides and the view of the Bombay High Court was also approved by the Law Commission by observing that the wording of sub-section does not seem to justify the addition of any further restriction and the language is clear and needs no amendment on that point. 8. Section 127 provides that the application for alteration in the allowance can be filed by the wife, child, father or the mother. Sub-section (2) provides that the Magistrate may cancel or vary any order under Section 125 in consequence of any decision of a competent civil court. Sub-section (3) provides that the order under Section 125 can be cancelled in certain set of circumstances such as divorce or remarriage. Sub-section (2) provides that the Magistrate may cancel or vary any order under Section 125 in consequence of any decision of a competent civil court. Sub-section (3) provides that the order under Section 125 can be cancelled in certain set of circumstances such as divorce or remarriage. Sub-section (4) provides that the civil court shall take into account the sum which has been paid to or recovered by way or maintenance. 9. Section 128 provides that a copy of the order of maintenance shall be given without payment to the person in whose favour the order is made and such order can be enforced by any Magistrate in any place where the person against whom it is made may be, on such Magistrate being satisfied as to the identity of the parties and the non-payment of the allowances due. Section 128, therefore, empowers that even if the order is passed by any Magistrate the maintenance order can be enforced by the Magistrate in a place where the person against whom it is made, is found. So far as the execution is concerned there is no restriction and it empowers any Magistrate to execute the said order wherever the person against whom it is made resides. Therefore, the limited question is whether under Section 127 an application can be filed before the Magistrate who had not passed maintenance order under Section 125. 11. There is also no reason for holding that the word "Magistrate" used in Section 127 should be interpreted narrowly by holding that the Magistrate who has decided the application under Section 125 only would have jurisdiction to decide the application under Section 127. 13. Further under Section 127 no other procedure is prescribed for deciding the application which may be filed for alteration or enhancement, or cancellation of maintenance order. Chapter IX which consists of four sections which provides for complete procedure for deciding maintenance application nowhere provides that under Section 127 the Magistrate is not required to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 126. Chapter IX which consists of four sections which provides for complete procedure for deciding maintenance application nowhere provides that under Section 127 the Magistrate is not required to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 126. While deciding the application under Section 127 the Magistrate is, therefore, required to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 126 and once it is held that the Magistrate is required to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 126 it would follow as a necessary consequence that the wife is entitled to file an application for enhancement under Section 127 in the district where she resides as per Section 126(1)(b). 14. It is further well settled by the series of decisions that the provisions of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code are for the welfare of the neglected wives, children and parents and the object is to prevent the harassment and that provisions should be construed liberally. 15. In the case of Bai Tahira v. Ali Hussain Fissalli Chothia, 1979 (2) SCC 316 , the Court has held as under : The point must be clearly understood that the scheme of the complex of provisions in Chap. IX has a social purpose. Ill-used wives and desperate divorcees shall not be driven to material and moral dereliction to seek sanctuary in the streets. This traumatic horror animates the amplitude of Section 127. Where the husband, by customary payment at the time of divorce, has adequately provided for the divorcee, a subsequent series of recurrent doles is contra indicated and the husband liberated. This is the teleological interpretation, the sociological decoding of the text of Section 127. The key note thought is adequacy of payment which will take reasonable care of her maintenance. The Court, has further held that. no construction which leads to frustration of the statutory project can secure validation if the court is to pay true homage to the Constitution. The Court also observed that the law is dynamic and its meaning cannot be pedantic but purposeful. 16. The Court, has further held that. no construction which leads to frustration of the statutory project can secure validation if the court is to pay true homage to the Constitution. The Court also observed that the law is dynamic and its meaning cannot be pedantic but purposeful. 16. In the case of Sirajmohmedkhan v. Hafizunnisa Yasinkhan reported in A.I.R. 1981 SC 1972, while considering the provisions of Section 125 of the Code, the Supreme Court made the following observations : Moreover, the Madras decision as also the earlier decision seem to have followed the outmoded and antiquated view that the object of Section 488 was to provide an effective and summary remedy to provide for appropriate food, clothing and lodging for a wife. This concept has now become completely outdated and absolutely archaic. After the International Year of Women when all the important countries of the world are trying to give the fair sex their rightful place in society and are working for the complete emancipation of women by breaking the old shackles and bondage in which they were involved, it is difficult to accept a contention that the salutary provisions of the Code are merely meant to provide a wife merely with food, clothing and lodging as if she is only a chattel and has to depend on the sweet will and mercy of the husband. Therefore, the object of Section 126 which provides that the wife is entitled to file application where she resides would be frustrated if narrow interpretation is given by holding that under Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code she can file application before the Magistrate who has passed an order under Section 125. In this set of circumstances if the said Section 127 is liberally construed without any violence to the language of the section, it cannot be said that under Section 127 of the Code the application is not maintainable before the Magistrate where woman resides. 17. Thus, the Coordinate Bench of this Court, after survey of the judgment of the Supreme Court has held that there is no specific bar that the application for enhancement or alteration of maintenance award cannot be filed before the Court where the wife resides. 17. Thus, the Coordinate Bench of this Court, after survey of the judgment of the Supreme Court has held that there is no specific bar that the application for enhancement or alteration of maintenance award cannot be filed before the Court where the wife resides. It is further held that in any set of circumstances, by giving interpretation to the provisions of Section 127 of the Code by holding that for modification or alteration, the wife is entitled to file application where she resides as provided under Section 126 of the Code, no violence is caused to the statutory provisions and has this chapter 9 is for the welfare of the neglected wives, children and parents, their application is narrow interpretation to set the provision as contemplate. Thus, the Coordinate Bench has held that the provisions as mentioned hereinabove specifies that application under Section 127 of the Code can be file where the wife resides and the law does not mandate that the same has to be preferred where the original order of the maintenance has been passed. 18. From the facts as noted hereinabove it appears that the applicant had initially residing at village Pal, where the marriage has been solemnized and during the pendency of this proceedings, she has moved to Gandhinagar. The applicant has accordingly shown her address residing at Gandhinagar where the subsequent applications are filed. The present application is filed by the applicant also indicates that she is residing at Gandhinagar. In fact, in the written statement, it is asserted by the respondent No. 1 that the applicant is having her own house at Gandhinagar. 19. The applicant has accordingly shown her address residing at Gandhinagar where the subsequent applications are filed. The present application is filed by the applicant also indicates that she is residing at Gandhinagar. In fact, in the written statement, it is asserted by the respondent No. 1 that the applicant is having her own house at Gandhinagar. 19. Under the circumstances, in light of the aforenoted provisions and the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gandhinagar has fell in error in rejecting the application filed by the applicant seeking enhancement of maintenance under Section 127 of the Code, the impugned judgment and order dated 04.04.2016 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gandhinagar in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 38 of 2013 (Old Case No. 793 of 2007) is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Gandhinagar and it is directed that application shall be decided after hearing all the concerned parties on merits, preferably within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith.