Karnataka High Court
Honnappa S/O Siddappa Tadalagi vs Neelamma W/O Honnappa Tadalgi on 23 July, 2010
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
_;. NEEVLAMMAVI' " . 5
'T -~~*s:NCI+: MINOR
IN T HE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED Tms T}-IE 232-d DAY 01' JULY 2010-{
BEFORE ' V'
THE I-ION'BL13 MRJUSTICE A.N.V}:";4NU_Gn{)13}&T.,):§...(*:O'\%?'_m;&é 7
RPFc.No.52s' 013* 2019" A VA V i % R
BETWEEN:
HONNAPPA
s/0 SIDDAPPA TADALAGI _
Age:35 YEARS V
0cc:AGR1cu'1,'1'ur;:-1+; '
R/O:KA1RJAG1~585 _ 1'
TQ:AFZALPUF-e »
DIST:GULBARGA5.__
1111 " ....PI::Tm0NER
(By s-n.:s *s_ ) '
AND
« W/0.1vi0MNAPPA'"*m.I)A1,G-1
» Age-. 3o.Y-mas
" Qcc;}=1QuSE}1Q1.1) WORK
~. S-,/.0:I*IAT3?»i.}1V1AN"I'I{AYA SAHEBGOUDA BIDADAR
;n,_PMc,.§30A.rz:)1NG,
IE3iJAIi?UR+586 101.
V n .RAv1"r<1J1\/IAI2
T , S/go I~IONNA.PPA 'I'Ai)ALGI
'zxgc: 9 YISARS
; OCC:STUIT)ENT
5-}. 4« '
dispute. the relationslnp. He denied the i11~t1*eat.n1ent:. It
was c:0nt,e11cIed that the l'CSpOI."1df:'I1IiS are not s:'t"aying
w'it.1'":1'n the _j:,11*isdiet.io1'1 c.>t'P'a1I1ily Court. E-3ij21pu1j...::1_11dVV'E';eh(%e_
the C0t11"€: has no ju1'isdict.ion to my the ease'."'-R<::€§301ide1.1t:t '
No.1 herein deposed as PW41 zmcl EXs_--I?1 -1;.-md «P2 'we1'e.
]T1E1l'1{€d. The pet.it.i()r1e1* he1*e1n_Geposehies .RW--"i.._ é1nd"'EXs~ "
R} 1.0 R3 were ma1*ked,-- .zAt1e1jV-:1;;jj'1*e(iiatiott «OE'vt.i1et..:evident:e,
the Court beiow has hé1tt'_:;--_h;::;,V before
it have given ';i).'f"Bij£1pt1I",A it has
got: jt1risdt.::'tii"c11' t Court: bekiw has
furt,her--«helel'~.ttie1t:;::the--».jpeitihtitorteijsEbefore it: are unable to
11;1'c1i11t{é£-,ir1 Eire entitled for the mai11t.enanCe
from " who has 1'1.egiect.ed their
1na;i3jt.eJia11ce 'ci=esVpit,eV having stllficient rneans. It has
» 't,he:pet,it,io11e1' to pay the maintenance of RS750/~
. p,A1.n,? respondent and at Rs.500/ - to the second
1'es}"5o.1"1"€!.e1'1.'I". It' has 21350 held that the petition C,'1E1iH1i1"1g i11'a--i.nt.e1.i1ance cam. be filed where the petitioners reside. It. h:e'1s'A()t3sc'2'vec1 tihai present.]y the pe't:i2i01'1ers are residing at. V' I;3:'j21p11:' and .he.nee it. }'1z.-as got jurisciietitm to t.1;y the crase. 'E:
AV * 11et'l:'d as'-"i1'7o11'ows: -- """ H who can Claim II'1&1i}"1i€l'1E1}1('C. Se0t.i()1'1S E25 mid 1265 of the Code appeeii' in Chapt:e1* IX, which (*,e1rries the lioztdirig "Order for 1~1'1aintcnz111(:e of \.>v1'\reS. chilciren Seot:ion 126{1) of {tie Code which is r'e.j1__c§t¥;;3;:i1t:
purposo of this case reacts as £o11<:=vtvs:¥" ' {1} Proceedings 11.}1(if31"'V'V§'f1%.)_'(T"LiC')i'} til' 't.aker1 against oriy ;3é1*s'oV:i:' einy dtSVt'1'ic"i.; [a) WhCF(:','Wi:lv:t' {5}'j;V.§¥.2i:¢f=s:' hit: or Kaur and another Vs Jaswarii:_smgh,__"i1l;gp¢'rvt<;{&1<.at AIR 1963 so 1521. the p1"opositiion'4'o£,v1aw7'1"eté.tifig to proper jurisdiction has been _ '" (§'t'tt.r::ie11 words of the sub--sect.ion are, and "where he last: resided with l1_i.~:s~ _\};:'ife". Urzdor the Code of 1882, the ..M;-;giStra1i.e of the DiS't'1'i(,'I. where the husband or 1'a_t.i1e1~. as the case may be, 1"f3Sid€d only had j1..zrisdict,.io1'1. Now the jurisd_ict'i(m is w'iC1e1'. it ggives t1'1ree 21.11:"->..x"1'12:1t:ive fo1*11n'1s. 'Flats in our view. 1'1;-£8 becm c1c?sigg1'1(:c£]y done by the I,:':;1_%is121i1:1'€ to
-'Mm-
t()gethe1'. The p1'()(i:e@(ii11gs under Section 125 of the Code are of oivi} nature. H€1'l(,'.(:'.. the petition "CV1-c1ij'r1irig_<'_{ n1a.i.11t.enanc.re cam be fiied by the wife and (:1::i'l€1r<:J.1_"w'hCré*r V' they 1*esici<2.
In the case of Kt,r1r1L.1tVr:a1ii._V and.' -.aI"iothér:."VvS'~.
Kztnnappa-111. mported at (i998}EE'S..ibSCCv. it who are the wife dgtttigititgorV 'r§3spo'oti'\reEwyvj of the respondent filed .3 potit:i.on' 125 Cr.P.C. against the riisntissed by the Magist,rat:e::'on:_t:né" had no jurisdiction to respondent was not residing' The revision petitions before the D.istv1'ict-.Co.1.irt;...zind High Courts were dismissed.
rf;]21t.tr%'rwasxtztkeri up before the Apex Court by 't.hé p¢t;i,tiorr:1'e1jS', it was held as ioliowszv appears that the court:-3 below have fatileci to take note of the provisions contained in Se(:t.i()n 126 of the CrPC. Uncier the said section, it.""is p£T1'l]1iSSibl€: for prmeedirigs 1rr1de1~ Seot:ion 125 to be t,aker1 atgeairist. a person in any district:
ta) wi1o1'e he or [b] where he or his wife resides, or (0) wE'1c're 1'19 last 1'<:*sided with his *':%:::¢ wife. or 2-15 the (.'.a:~':e may be. wit'l1 the mother of the legitimate child. The present ease falls undel" clause {b} of Section l6 CrPC sm«::*e_ appellant: l was 1'es3iding at 'I'huvakucli;'wi1:l1jli.3j1' 5 the jurisdictiorl of the Judicial Magisirme. Tirief application filed by the 21ppella_r11s__"'=.(:o'uld.._ 't:herefo1'e. be en.t':e1'l:a1"ne(i by.<1'he.;-:a1'C_1 MagiS'l,t'at'e_f_ and he was in error in diSll'1iSSi1'lg:. the "$21r1_1é=--..c>{3 the grouncl that he had 'no7._ji.11'isd~£el.l--oI1_ "
enle1'ta.inlhe same." '
9. in the ease of', 1321z'sl]an .K111§1a1' {SIi1t.}v..VS.vSurinder Kumar, 1'epor'L'ed at S_.l1"pp;V:_{'~'3~] the appellant who was a divorcee l'ilAec"il'a.n va_pj)li($a1.iOf1fV.['or mai11t:e1e1anee under Seciio;*l",iaS2_:%E$' 1'/W of {hie-..(_3_oVV(le in the Court' of Magist'rate- appll'iea_'tion, .she has statecl she {.eside$__a_l.v had also given her add1"e:§s of" I--lo'w.eve_r._. Vl'l'](', respo11dem./ husband (:hallefig;§e€l._ the of the Court. of the learned Magist.rz1l£=..g)i1Ilie .g4lr'e-._:1'11::c:l"_.'aVlha1t. she was not residing at Nuh.
2111d._§At.l1a11 s11el" had resiclixeag all along in New Delhi and
1.l1ef1-ei'o'1:<3:-, Vlégle Court has no _§urisdiCt.io11. The learned _ EX/Eai§.{§,is1f2'*v:-1_fe.V'a£:eepl.ed the plea and dismissed the petition.
1.'-"1g.§£i.i'lI:I£f»'l '1;}«.éfg,~_ .$§aicl decisio11. E116: a;')pell21n1 approaclled the SesE.%i<)1'is (_Zo1,.:r£ in Rex-'isio11. who allowed the app1_ie211i(>1'1 ' xi 21 result.. the petiLio1'1 fails and shall st.a_11d 'N diSlI1iSS('?C'1.
J1./mn/I