1 / 4 2025:CGHC:1135 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 565 of 2023 1 - Ragini Tiwari W/o Abhinav Tiwari Aged About 29 Years Currently At- Sai Colony, Jora, Police Station Telibandha Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Abhinav Kumar Tiwari S/o Shri Prabhat Tiwari Aged About 36 Years At- House No. 262 A, Trimurti Nagar, Rajiv Gandhi Ward, Police Station Gohalpur, District : Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Lukesh Mishra, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Ashutosh Biswas, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 08/01/2025 1. The instant Criminal Revision under Section 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act has been filed for setting aside the order dated 26/04/2023 passed by the 1st Additional Principal Family Court in case No.402/2022 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 2. The brief facts of this case are that the petitioner/wife has filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. on 20/05/2022 seeking maintenance from the respondent/husband. The said application came to ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.01.22 18:06:34 +0530 2 / 4 be registered as MJC 402/22. Thereafter, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur issued notice to the Respondent. Thereafter on 12/09/2022, the respondent appeared before the Family Court. On 10/11/2022 the respondent filed objection and the petitioner filed the reply to the objection on 05/04/2023 and the arguments were heard on the preliminary objection. On 26/04/2023 the Family Court Raipur accepted the preliminary objection raised by the respondent/husband and the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has shown his address as District Damoh whereas in the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. she has shown her address as Raipur and stated herself to be residing in Raipur for the last three years, however, she has not produced any proof with regard to her residence in Raipur. Accordingly, her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has categorically averred before the Family Court that after expulsion from her in laws’ house, she was residing in Raipur for the last three years along with her brother. He would next contend that the petitioner is studying in Pt. Harishankar Shukla College, Kachna Raipur, C.G. since 2021 which would be evident from her identity card of the said college, however, despite the same the Family Court has rejected the application of the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the Family Court for adjudication afresh. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the 3 / 4 order of the Family Court is well merited which do not call for any interference by this Court and the Family Court has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that he do not want to file reply. Therefore, the petition is heard in absence of the reply by the respondent. 7. Section 126 (1) Cr.P.C. lays down as under:- "126. Procedure. (1) Proceedings under Section 125 may be taken against any person in any district- (a) where he is, or (b) where he or his wife, resides, or (c) where he last resided with his wife, or as the case may be, with the mother of the illegitimate child." 8. Section 126 (1) Cr.P.C. stipulates that the proceedings under 125 Cr.P.C. may be filed in any district where the respondent resides or where his wife resides or where the respondent last resided with his wife, or as the case may be, with the mother of the illegitimate child. 9. In terms of Section 126 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. the respondent would be entitled to maintain a petition both at the place where the husband is residing as also at the place where she is residing. Section 126 (1) Cr.P.C. does not contemplate a permanent place of residence. Even a place where the wife is for the time being residing would confer jurisdiction on such a 4 / 4 court, where she is residing. However, residence temporarily acquired solely for conferring jurisdiction would not satisfy the requirements of Section 126 (1) Cr.P.C. 10. In the present case, the petitioner has placed on record copy of Identity Card of Pt. Harishankar Shukla College, Kachna Raipur, C.G. wherein she is studying since 2021. The petitioner is studying and is not in a position to maintain herself. Keeping in view of the fact that the wife can maintain a petition at any place where she is residing and the fact that the respondent has placed on record copy of Identity Card of her College at Raipur and has also produced the Adhar Card of her brother wherein also the address of Raipur has been shown and she is residing along with him, I am of the view that the Trial Court has committed error in rejecting the application of the petitioner holding that the Trial Court has no territorial jurisdiction. 11. 11. Considering the entire facts & circumstances of the case in view of the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order dated 26/04/2023 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Family Court Raipur for afresh adjudication of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner. The Family Court shall restore the case to its original number and issue notice to the petitioner and respondent and thereafter proceed to decide the application on its own merits. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu