THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.957 of 2007 Dated: 01ST FEBRUARY, 2010 Between: M.Bala Krishna Rao And another …Petitioners AND Malla Sita Mahalakshmi And others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.957 of 2007 ORDER: This petition is filed by two of the sons under Section 482 Cr.P.C. questioning order dated 03.10.2006 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam, in Criminal Revision Petition No.71 of 2004 by which that Court confirmed order dated 22.07.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Sompeta in M.C.No.2 of 2002 granting maintenance of Rs.500/- per month by each of the five sons to their mother under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The first respondent herein who is their mother, filed maintenance case against her five sons, who are petitioners 1 and 2 and respondents 3 to 5 herein, before the Magistrate claiming total sum of Rs.5,000/- per month from them on the ground that they are neglecting and refusing to pay maintenance to her who is unable to maintain herself. The Magistrate granted maintenance of Rs.500/- per month to the mother, payable by each of five sons separately. All the sons questioned order of the Magistrate before the Sessions Judge who confirmed order of the Magistrate. In this petition, only two of the sons are questioning the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the first petitioner is admittedly resident of Bhuvaneshwar of Orissa State and the second petitioner is admittedly resident of Visakhapatnam, and that none of them is a resident of Srikakulam district, where the proceedings were launched by the mother. Reliance was placed on Section 126(1) Cr.P.C. by the petitioners counsel. It is contended that maintenance proceedings by the mother against the petitioners should have been initiated at Bhuvaneshwar and at Visakhapatnam and not in Srikakulam District. There is no dispute that mother is a resident of Sompeta in Srikakulam District and three of the sons who are the respondents 3 to 5 are also residents of Sompeta in the same district. Claim of the mother against all the five sons is a joint one, even though the Courts below awarded maintenance to her separately from each of the sons at Rs.500/- per month. Jurisdiction in respect of proceedings has to be decided on the claim as per the maintenance petition and cannot be decided as per award passed by the Courts below. Thus, the mother could have launched maintenance proceedings against all her five sons put together, in the districts of either Srikakulam or Bhuvaneshwar or Visakhapatnam. When all the three districts are having territorial jurisdiction, the mother, who filed the petition before the Magistrate, is at liberty to choose any one of the above three jurisdictions to start maintenance proceedings. It is not as if the mother has to file three separate maintenance cases, one at Sompeta against three sons, one at Bhuvaneshwar against one son and one at Visakhapatnam against one son. Since claim of the mother against all five sons was a joint one, the petitioner being dominant litus, can pick and choose any of the Courts, which are simultaneously having jurisdiction to entertain her petition. Therefore, I find that the petition for maintenance filed by the mother in Sompeta Court in Srikakulam District is in accordance with Section 126(1) Cr.P.C. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J February 01, 2010 Bvv