HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Crl.R.C.No. 644 of 2009 O R D E R: This Revision is directed against the order dated 26.02.2009 passed in I.A.No. 89 of 2008 in FCOP No. 25 of 2008 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool, whereby and whereunder the learned Judge of the Family Court dismissed the Application filed by the petitioner husband under Order VII Rule 10 C.P.C. The petitioner and the 1st respondent are husband and wife. The 2nd respondent herein is their daughter. Respondents No. 1 and 2 filed F.C.O.P. No. 25 of 2008 seeking maintenance. The petitioner- husband entered appearance and filed I.A.No. 89 of 2008 under Order VII Rule 10 C.P.C., raising jurisdiction aspect. According to him, the place of residence of the 1st respondent wife does not confer jurisdiction to the Court situated at Kurnool. The learned Judge of the Family Court, after referring Section 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, proceeded to hold that the wife resides at Kurnool town and therefore, the Family Court at Kurnool has jurisdiction in terms of Section 8(a) of the Family Courts Act. The said order is assailed in this Revision. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order impugned in the Revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner- husband filed O.P. No.3 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, seeking divorce, wherein interim maintenance was reduced and thereupon, the wife carried the matter in revision and this Court in the revision, granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month. A further submission has been made that since the 1st respondent wife is already receiving maintenance in the O.P. filed by the petitioner husband, by virtue of the orders passed in the Revision, the 1st respondent wife cannot issue further remedy invoking jurisdiction of the Family Court situated at Kurnool. Indisputably, what is granted to the 1st respondent wife is interim maintenance which subsists during the pendency of the O.P. filed by the petitioner husband. Once the O.P. filed by the petitioner husband ends in disposal, interim order of maintenance cease to operate. The order of interim maintenance in favour of the 1st respondent wife does not preclude her to initiate proceedings by filing O.P. seeking maintenance under Section 15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the procedure of initiating proceedings under Section 125 which reads as hereunder: “ 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 willfully avoiding service, or willfully 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 power to make such order as to costs as may be just. A perusal of the above-referred Section indicates that the place of residence of the wife that the wife can initiate proceedings in the Court which is situated in the place of her residence. Indisputably, the 1st respondent is residing in Kurnool and, therefore, the Family Court situated at Kurnool has jurisdiction to entertain the Application filed by her under Section 125 of the Coe of Criminal Procedure. Indeed, the learned Judge of the Family Court considered the provisions of Sections 125 and 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, more particularly Section 126(1)(b) and proceeded to dismissed the Application filed by the petitioner- husband. I do not see any irregularity or illegality warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ------------------------------------ (B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J) 7th October 2009 ksld