IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.884 of 2010 RAKESH KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 30.8.2010 The petitioner seeks quashing the entire proceedings in Trial No.1667 of 2006 arising out of Misc.Case No.155 of 2006/155 of 2003 pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Vaishali at Hajipur including orders passed by the Principal Judge between 16.6.2006 to 20.7.2010 in the aforesaid case on the basis of application filed by Ranjita Kumari, respondent no.3 under section 125 Cr.P.C. The petitioner submits that against the order dated 4.9.2009 passed by the Principal Judge, Hajipur, he has preferred Criminal Revision No.1818 of 2009 before this court challenging the claim of maintenance filed under section 125 Cr.P.C. by the Opposite party. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has challenged the impugned proceeding in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dawalsab Vs Khajasab, reported in (2009) 14 SCC 660. In the aforesaid case the appellant was the father and the respondent was his son, wherein the appellant-father had prayed for maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. against his son. The learned Family Judge rejected the maintenance case on the ground that he would have no jurisdiction to try the case as the respondent son was not residing 2 within his territorial jurisdiction. As per section 126 Cr.P.C. the proceedings under section 125 may be taken against any person in any district where he or his wife resides or where he has last resided with his wife. The Hon’ble Apex Court noticed that the maintenance case was not filed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court where the appellant’s son resided from whom he was seeking maintenance. In the instant case the person who has filed the case is the wife of the petitioner and as such as per section 126(b) Cr.P.C. a case will be maintainable where wife resides. Thus, the decision rendered in the case of Dawalsab Vs Khajasab (supra) would not be applicable in this case. In the aforesaid case, the complainant was not the wife rather the father who had claimed maintenance against his son. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has already preferred revision application against the impugned order granting maintenance to Opposite party vide Cr.Revision No.1818 of 2009 and the instant writ application has been filed as the revision against an interlocutory application would not be maintainable. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a Full Bench decision of this court rendered in the case of Neelam Kumari Sinha Vs Shree Prashant Kumar , reported in 2010(3) PLJR 632. As the petitioner has already preferred Criminal Revision No.1818 of 2009 against the impugned order granting maintenance to Opposite party, the instant writ application will 3 KHAN add only to the multiplicity of the case unnecessarily. It would be open for the petitioner to raise all these points in the Criminal Revision itself as well as for converting the same into one under the Criminal Writ application. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. (S.P.Singh,J)