THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.840 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 19.3.2009 passed in Crl.M.P.No.315 of 2008 in M.C.No.244 of 2008 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, whereby and whereunder the learned Judge dismissed the application filed by the wife seeking interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month pending disposal of M.C.No.244 of 2008. In view of the order proposed to be passed, the facts of the case are not required to be mentioned in detail. It is suffice to say that the petitioner filed M.C.No.244 of 2008 before the learned Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, under Section 125 Cr.P.C seeking maintenance. She also moved Crl.M.P.No.315 of 2008 seeking interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month. The respondent/husband entered appearance and filed counter resisting the application filed by the petitioner/wife. The learned Judge, Family Court, dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner/wife cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Family Court situated at Ranga Reddy. The relevant portion of the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, reads as hereunder: “When the Court considers the pleadings of the main petition the documents which the petitioner has filed, and the counter filed by the respondent to the main petition and as well as to the interim maintenance petition that the petitioner has stayed at Saroornagar and that she filed the MC case against the respondent appears to be only for the purpose of filing the said case. Even though the marriage between the parties took place at Siricilla at Karimnagar District and that she filed a criminal case and domestic case within the jurisdiction of the said Courts. But she filed the present case against the respondent before this Court and thereby, I hold that in order to have the better appreciation of the circumstances under which the petitioner has to file the petition before this Court has to be established by the petitioner with regard to the aspect of the jurisdiction during the course of regular enquiry as objected by the respondent and thereby, I hold that the petitioner at this stage is not entitled for grant of any interim maintenance. But however the petitioner may establish her rights during the course of regular enquiry in the main MC, thereby the point is answered accordingly against the petitioner/wife and in favour of the respondent/husband. The Court has passed its order keeping in the mind the documents filed by the parties along with the main pleadings thereby the parties are at liberty to produce their oral and documentary evidence in support of their rival contentions during the course of regular enquiry”. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 3.6.2009. In response, the respondent entered appearance through a counsel. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the revision is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has specifically stated in paragraph 5 of the petition claiming interim maintenance that the petitioner has been staying at Saroornagar within the jurisdiction of Ranga Reddy District Court and therefore, the learned Judge, Family Court, is not justified in rejecting the application filed seeking interim maintenance. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner/wife initiated divorce proceedings in the Court situated at Karimnagar District, and therefore, the learned Judge of the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, is justified in refusing to grant interim maintenance. Section 126 Cr.P.C 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. (2) All evidence to 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 wilfully avoiding service, or wilfully 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 plain reading of the above provision indicates that the wife is entitled to initiate proceedings seeking maintenance, where she resides. Paragraph 5 of the petition filed by the petitioner seeking interim maintenance reads as under:- “… The petitioner is residing at Saroornagar and she is residing in a rented house and she is not having any means to maintain herself now the respondent who is running plywood and glass business in his own mulgi under the name and style “M/s. Sri Thirumala Traders” at Karimnagar, the respondent is earning an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month. Further the respondent is also having plots at Karimnagar. Further the respondent is earning an amount of Rs.10,000/- as an interest from the dowry amount”. The petitioner has specifically pleaded that she resides at Saroornagar. Therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner, unless contra proved by the respondent during the course of trial, can be said, prima facie, maintainable in the Family Court situated at Ranga Reddy District. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 19.3.2008 passed in Crl.M.P.No.315 of 2008 in M.C.No.244 of 2008 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District to consider the interim maintenance application on merits and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. ______________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J 19th August 2009 Note:- Issue C.C by 24.8.2009 (B/o) RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.840 of 2009 DATED : 19-08-2009