rd 3 January, 2022 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

In the present application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashment of the criminal proceedings vide Criminal Proceeding No. 110 of 2020 pending in the court of learned Judge, Family Court, Bhadrak on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the said court.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and the opposite party married on 13.05.2013 as per Hindu rites and customs in the residential house of opposite party at village Belar Nuagaon in the district of Kendrapara. Thereafter, both of them resided at village Baripalla in Kendrapara district for a few days. While the petitioner serves at Jharsuguda, the opposite party is working in Orissa High Court, Cuttack. After few days of marriage, both husband and wife went to their respective places of work and thereafter stayed separately and during holidays, they used to visit village Baripalla. It is however alleged by the petitioner-husband that from the very beginning, the opposite party avoided to keep physical relation with him and this continued for one year and thereafter, went to her matrimonial house and did not keep any further relationship with him. As such, both have been staying separately since 2014. On 30.01.2017, the petitioner sent an advocate's notice to the opposite party which was replied and an attempt was made for conciliation with the help of well-wishers from both sides, but the same failed. The petitioner- husband therefore, filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce in the Page 2 of 9 court of Judge, Family Court, Cuttack citing the grounds of cruelty and desertion which was registered as CP No. 654/2017. The said case was decreed ex-parte vide order dated 26.12.2018 granting a decree of divorce, since the opposite party had failed to appear despite sufficient service of notice. Subsequently, an application was filed by opposite party under Order 9, Rule 13 of CPC being CMA No. 6 of 2019 for setting aside the ex-parte decree, which is presently pending. While the matter stood thus, the opposite party-wife filed the proceedings in question, i.e., Criminal Proceeding No. 110/2020 before the Judge, Family Court, Bhadrak claiming maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved, the petitioner-husband has approached this Court seeking quashment of the aforesaid Criminal Proceeding on the ground that the Family Court at Bhadrak lacks territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

3. Heard Ms. Mina Kumari Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. U.C. Dora, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party.

4. It is argued by Ms. Das that suppressing the fact of pendency of the proceeding before the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, the opposite party has filed the proceeding at Bhadrak claiming Page 3 of 9 maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.. That apart, the opposite party being employed in the Computer Section of the Orissa High Court, Cuttack as System Assistant is a resident of Cuttack and further, no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Family Court at Bhadrak. According to Ms. Das, the proceeding has been filed only with a malafide intent to cause harassment and inconvenience to the petitioner-husband.

5. Per Contra, Mr. Dora, appearing for the opposite party- wife submits that the opposite party is presently residing at Apartibandha under Bhadrak Police Station and therefore, as per the provision under Section 126 of Cr.P.C., the proceeding filed at her instance at Bhadrak is maintainable.

6. A reference to the Family Courts Act, 1984 would reveal that Section 7 relates to jurisdiction of Family Court. Sub-section (2)(a) of Section 7 of Family Courts Act, 1984 reads as follows:

Section 8(b) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 reads as under:

7. From a conjoint reading of the aforequoted provisions, it is clear that the Family Court has jurisdiction to deal with the matter falling under Chapter-XI of Cr.P.C .. Chapter- IX deals with order of maintenance of wives, children and parents. While Section 125 Cr.P.C. Page 5 of 9 permits filing of application for maintenance, Section- 126 lays down the procedure thereof, which is quoted hereunder.

8. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is claimed that the opposite party-wife is residing at Apartibandha under Bhadrak Police Station and therefore, ordinarily, the claim filed by her for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. would be maintainable as per Section 126(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. but it is further noted that the opposite party -wife is working as System Assistant in the Computer Section of Orissa High Court at Cuttack. In course of hearing a query was posed by the Court as to how the opposite party could reside at Bhadrak in view of her service at Cuttack and if so, whether any permission was accorded to her to stay out of headquarters by the competent authority. Learned counsel for opposite party could not satisfy the Court nor could furnish any proof of any such permission being granted by the competent authority to the opposite party to stay out of headquarters. Significantly, a perusal of the petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. reveals that the wife has indicated her address as follows: Page 6 of 9

Paragraph-5 of the said petition reads as under:

9. There is not even a whisper of mention that the petitioner is residing at Apartibandha under Bhadrak Police Station It is not disputed that the present petitioner-husband belongs to village Baripalla in the district of Kendrapara but is presently residing at Nayapalli in Bhubaneswar. Therefore, there is no way in which an application for Page 7 of 9 maintenance can be entertained by the Family Court at Bhadrak. Given the fact situation therefore, this Court is inclined to accept the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the claim for maintenance was filed at Bhadrak only to put the petitioner to inconvenience and to harass him. This court is also constrained to observe that the conduct of the opposite party-wife is not beyond reproach also for the reason that the proceeding filed by her before the Family Court Bhadrak also contains an affidavit stating her present address at village Apartibandha under Bhadrak Police Station.

10. In view of the discussion made hereinbefore, it becomes clear that the affidavit so submitted along with the petition is false, which warrants necessary penal action in accordance with law. However, it is submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party that the opposite party being a lady and completely ignorant of the legal procedure, may have acted entirely as per legal advise tendered at the relevant time as being an employee of the Orissa High Court, she had no intention to flout the law. Considering the above, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view, also looking at her young age. Page 8 of 9

11. For the forgoing reasons therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the proceeding for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed before the Family Court at Bhadrak by the opposite party is not maintainable in the eye of law for want of territorial jurisdiction thereby warranting interference by this Court. This Court is therefore, inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner by exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in question.

12. In the result, the CRLMC is allowed. Criminal Proceeding no. 110 of 2020 pending in the court of Judge, Family Court, Bhadrak is hereby quashed.

..........................

Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 3rd January, 2022/ A.K. Rana Page 9 of 9