THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No : 879 of 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order, dated 12-02-2009, passed in M.C.No.4 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jammalamadugu, Kadapa District, whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance of Rs.1000/- per month against the respondents 1 and 2 herein. 2. Petitioners are the parents of the respondents 1 and 2. It is the claim of the petitioners that the respondents 1 and 2 are gainfully employed, earning decent salary, and they are not capable of maintaining themselves and therefore sought for maintenance @ Rs.1500/- per month. Respondents 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed counters. Learned Magistrate took up the jurisdictional aspect as a preliminary issue. Since the respondents 1 and 2 are not residing within the territorial jurisdiction of Jammalamadugu the learned Magistrate proceeded to dismiss the application on the ground of want of jurisdiction by order, dated 12-02-2009. The said order is assailed in this Revision Case. 3. Notice before admission has been ordered on 17-06-2009. Respondents 1 and 2 entered appearance through a counsel. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are aged parents of the respondents 1 and 2 and there is every obligation on their part to maintain them. A further submission has been made that the petitioners reside at Jammalamadugu and therefore the Court situated at Jammalamadugu has got jurisdiction. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that it is not the place of residence of the appellants which confers jurisdiction on the Court but it is the place where the respondents 1 and 2 reside against whom maintenance has been sought for. 7. Reliance has been placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in VIJAY KUMAR PRASAD v. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS[1] wherein it has been held that claim for maintenance by father against son, application has to be filed only at the place where the son is residing. It cannot be filed at the place where the father is residing. It is permissible only in the case of claim made by wife or children. 8. In view of the settled proposition of law the order passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to call for interference of this Court. 9. The Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. ____________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J 04th August, 2009 Tsy [1] 2004(1) ALD (CRL) 736 (SC)