1 2025:CGHC:29180 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 84 of 2020 Koushal Prasad Tiwari S/o Hirdaylal Tiwari R/o Kailash Colony, Ward No. 2 Lohara Road, Karwardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1. Arun Tiwari S/o Kaushal Prasad Tiwari Aged About 38 Years R/o Masirgaon, Tehsil Mangoan, District Rewa, Madhya Pradesh. 2. Diwakar Tiwari S/o Koushal Prasad Tiwari Aged About 36 Years R/o Diwakar Digital Shop, Allahabad Rd., Main Rd. Mangoan, Tehsil Mangoan, District Rewa, Madhya Pradesh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate. For Respondents : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.06.2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 18.11.2019 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kabirdham, (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No.506/2019, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC of the applicant/father. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.02 11:03:07 +0530 2 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant is the father of the respondents aged about 71 year old, lives in the rented house with his second wife at Kailash Colony, ward no. 2 Lohara road, Karwardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) In the present circumstance he is unable to maintain himself and his wife therefore has brought the suit for maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC. The applicant wife filed maintenance application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. The applicant preferred application before Family court, Kabirdham under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., which has attained the Special Criminal Case No. 506/2019. The learned Judge, Family Court Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. in Special Criminal Case No. 506/2019 has passed decree in favour of the respondents vide its order dated 18/11/2019. The learned Family Court without appreciating the clinching evidence available on record submitted by applicant regarding his penurious financial status and that without appreciating the case on merits has dismissed the application under Section 125 of Jurisdiction. It is submitted that the impugned order is erroneous and without jurisdiction in asmuchas the learned Family Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction in a judicious manner and has displayed undue sympathy in favour of respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, erroneous, therefore liable to be set-aside. The learned Family Court further unjust is passing the order in favour of respondents stating that the applicant has no territorial jurisdiction in filling the case of maintenance. The Learned Family Court fell into a grave error in observing that the applicant does not have any territorial jurisdiction whereas applicant claims that he is 3 unable to maintain himself and that his son, though has sufficient means, has not been providing any help to him and therefore the Court may esquire into this claim and pass appropriate orders. The cause of action for him has arisen, as can be made out from this petition, at the place where he resides. In such circumstance, approach the Court within whose jurisdiction he resides, seeking the relief he claims. In the view of Ananth Gopal v. Gopal Narayan Pai ILR 1985 KAR 2607, would have jurisdiction to entertain that claim and deal with it on merits. The order that Court may make would be enforceable against the son wherever he is and that is clear from Section 128 of the Code. The observation made by the learned Family Court is erroneous and is contrary to the law laid down by Apex Court in various cases. The learned Family Court has erred in rejecting the applicant application on the ground of Jurisdiction whereas, it should have gone on the merits as the cause of action for him has arisen, as can be made out from this petition, at the place where he resides. The learned Family Court has failed to notice that the applicant is aged about 71 years old and cannot go to Manngoan, Dist. Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, The learned Family Court committed illegality by dismissing the petition on the grounds of extra territorial jurisdiction. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the applicant has submitted an application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., stating himself to be the father of the respondents and stating himself to be a resident of Kailash Nagar Kawardha District Kabirdham. In his own application, the addresses of respondents have been given as 4 Masirgaon, Tehsil Mangoan, District Rewa and Main Road Mangoan District Rewa respectively, i.e., according to the applicant himself, respondents are not residents within the jurisdiction of this concerned Court. Further, according to the provisions of Section 126(1)(a) Cr.P.C. "Proceedings against a person under Section 125 Cr.P.C. can be taken in a district where he resides," i.e., in the context of the present case, the applicant, who is the father, does not have the jurisdiction to take action under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against his sons, who are respondents, in the Court of Kawardha District. Therefore, the applicant has no jurisdiction to take action under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the said order. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti