In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has upheld the jurisdiction of the Family Court in Bareilly to entertain an application filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) by a woman for maintenance, rejecting the objections raised by the applicant regarding territorial jurisdiction. The case, Majid Khan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (Application U/S 482 No. 3752 of 2024), was decided by Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery.
Background of the Case
The dispute revolves around an application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the complainant, who is also the Opposite Party No. 2 in this case. The complainant had filed for maintenance on July 30, 2021, stating her residence in District Bareilly. The applicant, Majid Khan, contested this, arguing that the complainant is a resident of Delhi, where she had filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The applicant challenged the maintainability of the application on the grounds that the complainant does not permanently reside in Bareilly, and hence, the Family Court in Bareilly does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Important Observations by the Court
During the hearing, Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery made several important observations regarding the interpretation of the term “reside” under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the purpose of welfare legislation:
1. Broad Interpretation of “Reside”: The Court noted that the term “reside” under Section 125 Cr.P.C. should not be narrowly interpreted to exclude temporary or intermittent stays at a particular place, especially when the complainant maintains a significant connection to that location, such as her parental home in Bareilly. The Court stated:
“It cannot be said that a visit to Bareilly was a casual stay or a flying visit. The permanent address of the complainant at Bareilly would fall within the contour of ‘reside’.”
2. Welfare Legislation Must Not Be Frustrated: The Court highlighted the purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C. as a welfare provision designed to provide swift and effective relief to women and children. Justice Shamshery emphasized:
“If the argument that the complainant cannot file an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. at Bareilly because she has already filed an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in Delhi is accepted, the very purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is a welfare legislation, would be frustrated.”
3. Jurisdiction and the Role of the Court: The Court asserted that the judiciary should not allow procedural technicalities to obstruct the objectives of welfare legislation. Justice Shamshery observed:
“This Court, by invoking inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot become a tool to frustrate the very object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. merely on the objection of jurisdiction.”
Decision of the Court
Based on these observations, the Court dismissed the application by Majid Khan, thereby upholding the jurisdiction of the Bareilly Family Court. The court held that the term “reside” under Section 125 Cr.P.C. must be interpreted in a liberal manner, consistent with its nature as a welfare legislation aimed at protecting women and children.
The Court reiterated that the complainant’s frequent visits to her permanent address in Bareilly, where her parents reside, was sufficient to establish jurisdiction in Bareilly. The decision emphasized that the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. should be interpreted in a manner that does not undermine its primary objective of providing relief to women and children in need.
Case Details
– Case Title: Majid Khan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
– Case Number: Application U/S 482 No. 3752 of 2024
– Bench: Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
– Counsel for Applicant: Mohammad Fateh
– Counsel for Opposite Party: G.A. (Government Advocate), Mohd. Zubair
– Relevant Laws: Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
