IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF C.G. AT BILASPUR 55 CRMP NO. @ OF 2011 Vyash Narayan Kurre, s/o Hari PETITIONER Non—Applicant Ram Kurre, Aged about 57 years, R/o A—Z, Shiv Ram qWlUJw/ Colony, Janjgir, District— Janjgir ‘ n La 2nm~mg by aim l«J} ‘ Champa, , (C.G.)_ Qmo m RESPONDENTS Applicant VERSUS W/o Vyash Narayan Kurre, Aged about 44 years, Resident of Semiriya, P.0‘ Pandri, Raipur, (C.G.). A PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF Cr.P.C. FOR QUASHING OF APPLCIATION MJC 121z20l1 FILED BY RESPONDENT N0. 1 t0 2 FOR MAINTAINANCE BEFORE, FAMILY COURT RAIPURL C.G. @ WWQKMF N3 ... Kg ....$ Z.”wt 200 mmaaiiaia) 3941mm mmw‘éaszm WWW‘§1%€IW ammm $8 : Hon’bie $hri Manindra MohanShrivastava. J. 95-99-2911. g \ I Shri Ravi Kumar Bhagat‘ counsel for the petitioner. Heard. This petition has been fied by the petitiuner for quashing the proceedings in MJC No.12i/‘11 registered by the Famiiy Court on petitioner’s appiication under Section 1‘25 CrPC. Learned counsei for the o titioner submits that eariier respondents moved appiication under Secti t2?) CrPC before the Family Court; Biiaspur. The said petition was ‘ismissed for want of prosecution. Now fresh petition under Section 1‘25 CrPC has been fiied before the Famiiv Court at Raipur showing that the es‘pondent is residing at Raipur. Learned counsei for the petitioner submitt d that eariier the petition was dismissed for want of prosecution at Biiaspu and the petitioner has now preferred an appiication before the Famiiy ‘ourt, Raipur which has no territoriai Ci jurisdiction in View of the provision contained in Section 126 CrPC. ’V After perusai of responden s appiication under Section 125 CrPQ find that the respondent has fiied the appiication before the Famiiy Court, Raipur on the statement that s e is residing at Raipur. The question ‘ J whether the Famiiy Court, Rai. ur wiii have territoriai jurisdiction itself depends upon the determination o fact with regard to the piece of residence i of the respondent. The matter wo id therefore require evidence to be ied by ii i the parties. it wouid be open for ’he petitioner to raise appropriate defence i against territoriai iurisdiction and iso iead appropriate evidence before the @ XI—HC~--78 ,W mm QMMfMgKb H 200 ”z r'x mm (Wu) mmfm‘m‘ Han 321wm mmm am? ._ Q? WW WW % aifm m Famiiy Court in support of the fact of territeriai jurisdiction. The issue with regard to the territoriai jurisdicti‘ n Shati be decided by the Famiiy Court before taking up any other issuei the case. With the aforesaid observe ions, the petition is finaiiv disposed off. Sd/- Eeepti Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge