IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 737 OF 2008 Shri Wasif Iftedar Ali ... Petitioner. V/s. Mrs. Anwar Fatima Wasif Ali & Anr.. ... Respondents. ----- Mr. Anil Dhavale for the Petitioner. Mr. A.M. Solkar, for the Respondent No.1. Mr.Y.S.Shinde, APP for the State. ----- CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATED : JUNE 19, 2009 P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. 2. Considering the fact that the present petition arises out of an interlocutory order passed during the pendency of the petition filed by the first respondent wife under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereafter referred to as “the said Code”) the petition is forthwith taken up for final 2 disposal. The petitioner husband filed a reply to the main application under section 125 of the said Code. Various contentions on merits were raised by the petitioner in the said reply. A separate application was filed by the petitioner contending that the Family Court at Pune had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain a petition under section 125 of the said Code. A prayer was made in the said application that a preliminary issue as regards jurisdiction may be framed. The contention of the petitioner is that though the first respondent is a permanent resident of Delhi since marriage and though she had never resided at Pune, the first respondent wife has filed a petition in the court at Pune to harras the petitioner husband. It is contended that both the parties are resident of Delhi and therefore, the petition was not maintainable in the Family Court at Pune. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order. 3. The parties to the petition have relied upon various documents in support of their rival contentions on the issue of jurisdiction. The some of the said documents have not been placed on record of the Family Court. The object of section 125 of the said Code is to provide cheep and speedy remedy for obtaining orders of maintenance. The petition under section 125 of the said code has to be disposed of by following summary procedure. In the present case petition of the year 2006 is still pending. When the said petition is finally 3 decided, the Family Court can always deal with the issue of jurisdiction raised by the petitioner. The dispute is about the place of residence of the parties. Hearing and final disposal of the main petition cannot be delayed any further. Hence, I pass the following Order : i. Impugned order dated 2nd of February, 2008 is quashed and set aside. It is directed that the issue raised petitioner shall be considered by the Family Court at the time of final disposal of the petition under section 125 of the said Code. ii. The learned Judge of the Family Court to proceed with the hearing of the main petition under section 125 of the said Code and will conclude the hearing as expeditiously as possible and preferably by the end of this year. iii. All contentions of the petitioner and the first respondent on merit are expressly kept open. iv. Petition is disposed of accordingly. (A.S.OKA,J.)