Karnataka High Court
Sri Manojkumar vs Smt. Sonakshi on 14 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6044
CRL.P No. 201525 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201525 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SRI MANOJKUMAR
S/O MALLIKARJUN HARSURKAR,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O MAHAGAON VILLAGE,
TQ. KAMALAPUR, DIST. KALABURAGI-585313,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NEW MUMBAI BELAPUR,
STATE MAHARASHTRA.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VIJAYA MALLIKARJUNAPPA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by RENUKA AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. SMT. SONAKSHI
W/O MANOJKUMAR HARSURKAR,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
OCC: ANGANWADI TEACHER,
R/O MAHAGOAN, NOW AT TRIPURANTH,
BASAVAKALYAN, DIST. BIDAR-585327.
2. MAHENDRA
S/O MANOJKUMAR KARSURKAR,
AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS (MINOR),
OCC: STUDENT,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6044
CRL.P No. 201525 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. SHRADHA
D/O MANOJKUMAR HARSURKAR,
AGED ABOUT 09 YEARS (MINOR), OCC: STUDENT,
4. MAYANK
S/O MANOJKUMAR HARSURKAR,
AGED ABOUT 07 YEARS (MINOR), OCC: STUDENT,
ALL ARE MINORS U/G OF THEIR MOTHER
RESPONDENT NO.1 SONAKSHI, R/O MAHAGAON,
NOW AT TRIPURANTH, BASAVAKALYAN,
DIST. BIDAR-585327.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C (OLD), 528 OF BNSS (NEW) PRAYING TO ALLOW
THE PETITION AND QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 06-09-2025 IN CRL. MISC NO.1932/2025 FOR
WANT OF JURISDICTION, FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF
CR.P.C FOR MAINTENANCE BY RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4
BEFORE THE CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, AT BASAVAKALAYAN, DIST.
BIDAR.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
This petition is filed by the husband questioning the
legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned
Magistrate on an interlocutory application filed under
Section 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6044
HC-KAR
("Cr.P.C."), seeking rejection of the main petition on the
ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The respondent
No.1--wife, along with her three minor children has
instituted proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before
the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Basavakalyan, seeking
maintenance from the petitioner/husband.
2. Upon service of notice, the petitioner entered
appearance and filed an application under Section 126(1)
Cr.P.C., contending that the learned Magistrate at
Basavakalyan has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the
maintenance proceedings, as according to him, the
respondent No.1 is a permanent resident of Mahagaon. It
was urged that since the alleged place of residence of the
wife is outside the territorial limits of the said Court, the
proceedings are liable to be dismissed for want of
jurisdiction.
3. The learned Magistrate, on consideration of
rival contentions and on perusal of the affidavit filed by
respondent No.1, placed reliance on the judgment of this
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6044
HC-KAR
Court in Sangeeta and Others v. Bapu (RPFC
No.100043/2020) and came to the conclusion that the
address furnished by the wife in her affidavit clearly
establishes her present place of residence at
Basavakalyan. It is on this premises, the learned
Magistrate rejected the husband's application under
Section 126 Cr.P.C. The said order is now under challenge
in the present petition.
4. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it is
apposite to refer to the scheme and object of Sections 125
and 126 Cr.P.C. Section 125 Cr.P.C. embodies a measure
of social justice intended to prevent destitution and
vagrancy of wives, children, and parents who are unable
to maintain themselves. It provides a swift and summary
remedy to the neglected dependents to secure a bare
subsistence allowance for their survival. The provision,
being a piece of beneficial legislation, must receive a
liberal interpretation consistent with its purpose, namely,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6044
HC-KAR
to protect the weaker and more vulnerable sections of
society from starvation and hardship.
5. Section 126 Cr.P.C. lays down the procedure
and the place of inquiry and trial in proceedings under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. It specifically provides that
proceedings may be instituted in any district--
(a) where the person against whom an order
for maintenance is sought resides, or
(b) where the wife resides, or
(c) where the parties last resided together.
6. The intent behind this liberal conferment of
jurisdiction is to ensure that the claimant, who is generally
the wife or a dependent child, is not subjected to
unnecessary hardship or inconvenience in pursuing
maintenance proceedings at a distant place. The provision,
therefore, recognizes the practical difficulties faced by
deserted or destitute wives and confers upon them the
option to institute proceedings at the place where they are
residing, even if such residence is consequent upon the
neglect or desertion by the husband.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6044
HC-KAR
7. In the instant case, the learned Magistrate,
upon appreciation of the affidavit and supporting material,
has rightly concluded that respondent No.1 is presently
residing at Basavakalyan along with her minor children.
Once the factum of residence is established, the
Magistrate at Basavakalyan is vested with the jurisdiction
under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 126 Cr.P.C.
The contention of the petitioner that the wife is a resident
of Mahagaon and that the present proceedings are not
maintainable at Basavakalyan is, therefore, unsustainable
in law.
8. This Court is conscious of the fact that the wife
and three minor children are before the Trial Court seeking
maintenance, a relief which is essential for their
sustenance. Entertaining a technical plea of territorial
jurisdiction at this preliminary stage would defeat the very
object and spirit of Section 125 Cr.P.C. and would result in
prolonging the hardship of the dependents. Once the wife
has sworn to an affidavit indicating that she is compelled,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6044
HC-KAR
due to her circumstances, to reside with her sister at
Basavakalyan, the same must be accepted for the limited
purpose of determining jurisdiction under Section 126
Cr.P.C.
9. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds
no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Magistrate.
The impugned order is in consonance with the statutory
provisions and the object sought to be achieved under
Sections 125 and 126 Cr.P.C. The petition filed by the
husband is, therefore, devoid of merits and stands
dismissed.
10. In view of the disposal of the main petition, all
pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed
of as not surviving for consideration.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
RSP
CT:SI
