IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.M.M.O. No.238 of 2010 Judgment Reserved on: 9.5.2011 Date of decision: 23.05.2011 Jagdish Kumar … …Petitioner Versus Sneh Lata … …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr.Anoop Rattan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms.Sunita Sharma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge setting aside the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu dismissing the petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the respondent wife. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, on the points raised for determination, holds that the Court at Kullu has no jurisdiction to try the case. 2. In revision, the learned Sessions Judge, holds that the factum of marriage has not been disputed, it is only jurisdiction which has to be 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 determined. Considering the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the learned Sessions Judge holds that the findings of the learned Sessions Judge are not maintainable. For this purpose he considers the evidence of the wife who appeared as PW-1 where she has denied any suggestion of her living in Delhi. Adverting to the provisions of the law though on the evidence he also considers that the respondent- wife had taken training at a beauty parlour at Delhi. The learned Court holds that the relations between the parties are strained for which purpose the wife had instituted a criminal case under Section 498-A IPC which was proved on record as Ex.PW-1/A. The case was instituted at Kullu on 21.10.2004 and decided on 11.5.2007. He holds that the evidence on record does not establish the permanent intent of the abandonment of residence at Kullu. 3. On the evidence, therefore, the learned Court holds that the Courts at Kullu have jurisdiction and the case was remanded for decision afresh in accordance with law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has urged with vehemence that the Courts at Kullu have no jurisdiction and that such jurisdiction, if any, lies only with the Courts outside Kullu for which purpose ample evidence has been led. 3 6. What must not be lost sight of is the fact that Section 125 is a beneficent piece of legislation which has been enacted as a succor to a party who has been abandoned/not maintained by the person, duty bound in law to do so. Interference in the order of the learned Sessions Judge is not called for, more especially when he holds on a detailed consideration of the evidence that there is no abandonment of residence and on the evidence otherwise also the jurisdiction lies with Courts at Kullu. I, therefore, find no merit in this revision petition which is dismissed. All interim orders are vacated. May 23, 2011. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.