IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1017 of 2010 DATE:20.07.2010 Between: Radhika Sagadev Pillay …… Petitioner And: Sagadev Angumuttu Pillay and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1017 of 2010 ORDER: This revision petition is filed by the wife questioning order dated 11.05.2010 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad in M.C. No.294 of 2006 dismissing the maintenance case on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction. 2) According to the lower Court, the petitioner is a resident of J.J.Nagar, Secunderabad. If the petitioner is a resident of Secunderabad, then the petitioner is at liberty to file maintenance case either in Secunderabad Court or in Hyderabad Court because both the places are within one and the same district i.e., Hyderabad urban district. It is stated by the 1st respondent’s counsel that J.J.Nagar is in Malkajigiri of Rangareddy District and not in Secunderabad. On the other hand, the petitioner’s counsel stated that the petitioner is residing at 5-3-363 (old), Tope khana, Osmangunj, Hyderabad as a tenant by taking a rented premisis since the year 2006. The lower Court disbelieved the same having regard to the address of the petitioner mentioned in Ex.P-1 notice got issued by her to the 1st respondent on 27.10.2006. This Court does not find any reason to come to a different conclusion with regard to the residence of the petitioner. In any event, in case the lower Court found that the petitioner is not resident of the district and that the lower Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the maintenance case, proper order to be passed by the lower Court is to return the petition for presentation to proper Court. Since the lower Court has no territorial jurisdiction, it is equally not having jurisdiction to dismiss the maintenance case. This is an error committed by the lower Court. In the lower Court, the entire evidence was let in by both the parties. In the circumstances, at this point of time after four years even if the maintenance petition is returned to the petitioner for presentation to proper Court, it will lead to unnecessary hardship for the petitioner. 3) In the result, the lower Court is directed to restore M.C. No.294 of 2006 to its file. Thereupon, M.C. No.294 of 2006 is transferred from the Judge, Additional Family Court, Hyderabad to the Judge, Family Court, Rangareddy District for disposal according to law on the basis of evidence already recorded. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J July 20, 2010 KSH