drp {1} CWP No.1080/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1080 OF 2010 Rajhans s/o Rajkamal Jadhav, PETITIONER Age-11 years, Occ-Education Minor u/g of natural mother Chhaya d/o Bapurao Suryawanshi, Age-26 years, Occ-Service, R/o At present Maregon, Tq-Kinwat Dist-Nanded VERSUS 1. Rajkamal s/o Govindrao Jadhav RESPONDENTS Age-35 years, Occ-Agriculture R/o Manatha, Tq-Hadgaon, Dist-Nanded 2. The State of Maharashtra Though Superintendent of Police, Nanded ....... Mr.Gajanan Kadam, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.R.R.Shaikh, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr.G.R.Ingole, APP for respondent No.2 State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 24th March 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. On the oral request, leave to add State as party drp {2} CWP No.1080/2010 respondent, is granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Issue notice to newly added respondent. Learned APP accepts notice. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. The limited question of law involved in this petition is that whether a court can decide the proceedings on merits, after coming to the conclusion that the Court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the same. 4. Such of the facts, as are necessary for the decision of this petition, may briefly be stated thus - An application was moved by the petitioner, through his mother, for grant of maintenance u/s 125 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, before JMFC, Nanded. It appears that the said application was opposed by present respondent No.1 on various grounds, including that the said Court had no jurisdiction to try and entertain the said application. Thereafter the parties were directed to lead evidence. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, the learned Magistrate had framed points for determination. The first point was in respect of jurisdiction. Though Learned Magistrate has recorded the finding that it has no jurisdiction to try and decide the said application, yet the learned drp {3} CWP No.1080/2010 Magistrate instead of rejecting the application for want of jurisdiction, decided the same on merits and rejected the same. The said order dated 20.03.2010 was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge, Nanded by preferring Criminal Revision Application No.75/2010. Learned Sessions Judge, vide judgment and order dated 28.09.2010, dismissed the revision, which is impugned in the present petition. 5. The only point urged before this Court is that while deciding the criminal revision, the Sessions Judge has though observed and concluded that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to decide the application moved before it, yet instead of quashing the order passed by learned Magistrate and directing the petitioner to present the application before appropriate court, dismissed the revision on merits. 6. Perused the judgment passed by learned Magistrate so also the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application. Though the learned Sessions Judge has observed that the trial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try and entertain the application of the petitioner, yet the Sessions Judge has erroneously decided the revision on merits. 7. The law is settled on this point that the orders passed without jurisdiction are nullity in the eye of law. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Magistrate on merits though drp {4} CWP No.1080/2010 concluding that it has no jurisdiction to pass the same, which is upheld by the sessions Court, is a patent error in law and on this count only the petition ought to succeed. 8. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order impugned in this petition dated 28.09.2010 passed in Criminal Revision Application No.75/2010 is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute on the terms indicated above. No costs. 9. It is hereby clarified that this petition is decided only on the point of jurisdiction and all the points are kept open to both the parties. It is also made clear that the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh application before the appropriate competent court and the orders impugned in the present petition would not operate as resjudicata, if the petitioner files application afresh. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A11/cwp1080-10