1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRI. Writ Petition No. 64/2010 Kishor s/o Motilal Chandan ( V. ) Meenabai w/o Kishor Chandan and another Mr. Padmakar Deshmukh, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. R.B. Narwade, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. N.H. Borade, A.P.P. for respondent No.3. CORAM : [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] ORAL ORDER : - 1. Heard. 2 This Cri. Writ Petition is filed against judgment and order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Nanded dated 17/11/2009 in Cri. Revision Application No.250/2008. 3 The facts leading to this litigation are as under. The respondents are wife and minor child of the petitioner. The respondents filed an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner in the Court of Judicial Magistrate (First Class), at Nanded. The respondents stated that they stayed at Nanded and so the Court has jurisdiction to try the case. The petitioner opposed the petition interalia on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction because the respondents has not been staying at Nanded. Despite taking such plea, the learned 2 Magistrate did not frame an issue as to ‘whether the Court has jurisdiction to try the case?’ Without deciding such issue, he allowed the application of the respondents. The petitioner challenged this order before the Sessions Court, Nanded. The learned Sessions Judge, Nanded held that the learned Magistrate, erred in not deciding the issue of jurisdiction and therefore, remanded the matter back. However, the learned Sessions Judge, directed the petitioner to pay Rs.500/- per month to each of the respondents till the disposal of the application. Against this order, this writ petition is filed. 4 The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the learned Sessions Judge erred in not allowing the revision. He said, although the issue was not framed by the learned Magistrate, on record there is ample material to decide the issue of jurisdiction. I am afraid, this argument is not acceptable. Unless, the issue is framed, the parties are not put to notice to give evidence on the issue. Unless an issue is framed, it could not be proper to decide the issue on the available record. Such course of action might result into mis-carriage mis-carriage of justice. I think, the impugned order is not erroneous. The writ petition stands dismissed. Dt : 7th May, 2010 [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] tsk/