IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF C.G. AT BILASPUR _^5^ CRMPNO.I OF 2011 ws a.3il m PETITIONER Non-applicant ® Mm ^.i.l^-.-h. ^^£'^S>^^ pfgsented by CT^^-;jy^^ Bated...---'-^- VERSUS iRESPONDENTS Applicant Vyash Narayan Kurre, s/o Hari Ram Kurre, Aged about 57 years, R/o A-2, Shiv Ram Colony, Janjgir, District- Janjgir - Champa, , (C.G.). ^F&yTaQ_ Kurre, S/o Vyash Narayan Kurre, Agedaboyt 9 year;' (Minor), Througl _^CAe_^_ •iuA: Kala about 35 years, fi^' , resident of Semiriya, P.0. Pandri, Raipur, (C.G.). A PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF Cr.P.C. OUASHING OF APPLCIATION MJC 119/2011 FILED SECTION 125 OF CR.PC BY RESPONDENT FOR MAINTAINANCE BEFORE. FAMILY COURT RAIPUR; C.G. ^ r •<<l^M^, yfll.'-i'Ka, fsraTCT^i: <?-^~y-^|= - tAj) .^SS^ / " sn^i TR^- (^fg^q) •wt?r^f"fNT 'BSfT sniSl a-qfe TOiTOt •gftg 3^1 SB : Hon'bie Shri Manindra Mo'nag ^rafwfh •qTO?Rit fezt Tfaliy< ^3TRpT3<^T Snnvasiava~37 nsAojni i •W^~',li!-W~SrV S 1 Shri Ravi Kumar Bhagat, ccjunsel forthe petitioner. This petition has been flled by the petitioner for quashing the proceedinfls in MJC No.119/11 registered by the Family Court on petitioner's application under Section 125 CrPC. Learned counsel for the rietitioner submits th.at earller respondents moved application under Secfi^in 125 CrPC before the Famiiy Court, Biiaspur. The said petitlon was| dismissed for want of prosecution. Now fresh Detition under Section 12$ CrPC has been fiied before the Famiiy Court at Raipur showing that t'i Learned counsel for the petitior dismissed for want of prosecuti' Dreferred an aDDtication before ^e respondent No;2 is residing at Raipur. ter submitted that earlier the petition vi/as ftn at Bilaspur and the petitioner nas now the Famiiy Court, Raipur which has no the Drovisions contained in Section 126 Raipur on the statement that whether the Familv Court, Rc deoends u.Don the determlnationi territorial jurisdiction in view ot| CrPC. After perusai of respondeht's appiication unaer yection 125 crpc, i find that the respondent h.as fii^d the application before the Family Court, he is residing at Raipur. The question, ipur will have terntorial iunsdiction itselT of fact wlth regard to the place of residence of the respondent. The matter wjould therefore require evidence to be led by the parties. it would be open f(^r the petitioner to ralse appropriate defence XI-HC—78 ^SEI "41'4H^, '&^W^, [^viW.y.. (V^M^- IA-O . S3T2?/»1 sn^T-T^i-('Tsfcp^^-) 3^q?'1S;IW wran^ig^iN- Ueepi! .. TOlRRttfpiafl^i °? +l<<!<'t<i1-< WRif'? fest TfSl^T< ^Tsifroan^T .against territoriai jurisdiction and aiso lead appropriate evidence berore the Famiiv Court ;n supDort of the fa:&t of territorial iurisdiction. The issue vi/itn before takin.q up. any'.other issue ir| regard to the territbrial iurisdicticjn shall be decided bv the Family Court l the case. With the aToresald observatfons, the petition is Tinally aisposea orr. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge