Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh Sharma vs Smt. Tina Sharma on 11 January, 2023
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 11 th OF JANUARY, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 56967 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
SURESH SHARMA S/O TEJRAM, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SERVICE CHADAR SARAFA KI BADI
HARDA TEHSIL AND DISTRICT HARDA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI BRIJENDRA GUPTA - ADVOCATE)
AND
SMT. TINA SHARMA W/O SURESH SHARMA, AGED
ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD CHADAR
SARAFA KI BADI HARDA TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
HARDA CURRENT ADD. VEER SAVDEKAR MARG,
KHATEGAON, DISTRICT DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
This application coming on for orders this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of the
order dated 06.08.2022 passed in Criminal Case No.29/2021 whereby the
application filed by the applicant under Section 126(1) of Cr.P.C. for rejection
of the case of the non-applicant on the ground of territorial jurisdiction has been
rejected. The non-applicant filed a petition for maintenance before the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Khategaon, Dist. Dewas.
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN SOUMYA RANJAN
DALAI
Date: 2023.01.11
17:29:40 IST
The applicant filed an application raising territorial jurisdiction on the
ground that as per the statement made to the Police Station Kannod, District
Dewas, the non-applicant was residing at Kannod, Dist. Dewas and not at
Khategaon and the father of the non-applicant also stated that the daughter/the
non-applicant is residing with him at Kannod, therefore, the application for
maintenance was not maintainable before the Magistrate at Khategaon, Dist.
Dewas.
To appreciate the aforesaid submission, the provisions of Section 126(1)
of Cr.P.C. is relevant to be quoted. The relevant provisions reads as under:-
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.
As per the provisions of Section 126 Cr.P.C. with prescribed procedure
for application under Section 125, it is provided that the application under
Section 125 may be taken against any person in any district (a) where he is, or
(b) where he or his wife resides (c) where he last resided with his wife, or as the
case may be, with the mother of the illegitimate child.
The non-applicant filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for
maintenance before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khategaon, Dist. Dewas
stating that at present she is residing in Village-Khategaon, District-Dewas after
taking house on rent. In support of his assertion in the petition, one affidavit of
Mohammad Rafiq Sheikh has been filed stating that he is the owner of the
house and the said house has been taken on rent by the non-applicant. The
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN SOUMYA RANJAN
learned Magistrate after hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating
DALAI
Date: 2023.01.11
17:29:40 IST
the provisions of Section 126(1) of Cr.P.C. and the evidence held that the
application was maintainable before the JMFC, Khategaon and rejected the
objection.
Counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court to some
bills of vegetables and milk to say that the non-applicant is still purchasing the
vegetables and milk from Village-Kannod, therefore, the order passed by the
Magistrate is erroneous. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for
the applicant cited the order dated 01.04.2022 passed by Coordinate Bench at
Gwalior in Criminal Revision No.3060/2021 (Nirman Sagar vs. Smt.
Monika Sagar Chaudhari & Anr.) and also a judgment of Madras High
Court in the case of K. Mohan vs. Balakanta Lakshmi, 1983 1 MLJ(Cri) 497
.
After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and upon perusal of the
order of Magistrate, I find that the Magistrate has appreciated the assertions
made in the application and also the affidavit of landlord and, therefore, there is
no illegality in the impugned order. Further the non-applicant is resident of
District-Dewas and as per the applicant, he is resident of District Harda, the
filing of the application at Khategaon instead of Kannod would not prejudice the
present applicant.
The judgments relied by the learned counsel for the applicant would not
apply to the facts of the present case as in the present case the non-applicant
has proved that she is residing at Village-Khategaon after taking house on rent.
In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the
order impugned warranting any interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
The petition is dismissed.
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN SOUMYA RANJAN
DALAI
Date: 2023.01.11
17:29:40 IST
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
soumya
Signature Not Verified
VerifiedDigitally
Digitally signed by
SAN SOUMYA RANJAN
DALAI
Date: 2023.01.11
17:29:40 IST
