Kumar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & Ors  Insc 236 (7 April 2004)
Raju & Arijit Pasayat.
out of SLP (Crl.) No.3151/2003) ARIJIT PASAYAT,J
present case reflects a sad state of affairs, as it involves a fight between
the father and his sons.
the appellant is son of respondent No. 2 [who is the petitioner claming
maintenance in terms of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in
short 'the Code'), the other respondents are appellant's step brothers.
factual background projected by the parties need not be noted in detail as the
pristine question involved is one of law relating to jurisdiction in terms of
Section 126 of the Code where an application can be filed. The application was
filed by the respondent No. 2 - father in the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Siwan. The appellant filed an application for transfer of the case
from Siwan to Patna alleging that an influential
politician was behind the litigation, and he would not get justice if the case
is tried at Siwan as he could not even arrange a lawyer to represent him.
to him, the Court at Siwan has no jurisdiction to entertain the application
because the appellant lives in Patna and is practising
as a lawyer. The Patna High Court rejected the application for transfer
primarily on the ground that the alleged apprehensions of the petitioner were
not established. The question relating to jurisdiction was not specifically
support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
question relating to jurisdiction was specifically urged before the High Court.
It was clearly stated that the appellant resides at Patna and the Court at Siwan could not
have entertained the application. In addition to the other aspects like
inability to get lawyer, the question of jurisdiction was specifically urged.
With reference to the language of Section 126 it is submitted that the
respondent no. 2 had filed the petition before the Siwan Court claiming that he resides within the
jurisdiction of the said court. It is not his residence which would determine
the jurisdiction, but the place where the person from whom he claims
maintenance i.e. present appellant resides.
response, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the allegations of
political influence having been discarded by the High Court in a transfer
petition, it was not open to the present appellant to raise the question of
the impugned order relates to a transfer petition, the question of jurisdiction
appears to have been specifically raised before the High Court. In normal
course we would have remitted the matter to the High Court for a decision on
that aspect; but considering the relationship of the parties and as rightly
submitted by learned counsel for the respondents the importance of the
question, we think it appropriate to examine the question of jurisdiction.
126 of the Code is in essence a repetition of Section 488 (6) to (8) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (in short the 'old Code'). Section 488 of the
old Code corresponding to Section 126 so far as relevant read as follows:-
"Proceedings under this section may be taken against any person in any
district where he resides or is, or where he last resided with his wife, or, as
the case may be, the mother of the illegitimate child." Section 125 deals
with various categories of persons who can claim maintenance. Sections 125 and
126 of the Code appear in Chapter IX which carries the heading "Order for maintenance
of wives, children and parents".
125(1)(d) relates to the father or the mother, unable to maintain himself or
126(1) which is relevant for the purpose of this case reads as follows:
under section 125 may be taken against any person in any district –
he is, or
he or his wife resides, or
he last resided with his wife, or as the case may be, with the mother of the
position of law relating to proper jurisdiction was highlighted by this Court
in Mst. Jagir Kaur and Another v. Jaswant Singh (AIR 1963 SC 1521) as follows:
words of the sub-section are, "resides","is" and
"where he last resided with his wife". Under the Code of 1882 the
Magistrate of the District where the husband or father, as the case may be,
resided only had jurisdiction.
the jurisdiction is wider. It gives three alternative forums. This in our view,
has been designedly done by the Legislature to enable a discarded wife or a helpless
child to get the much needed and urgent relief in one or other of the three
forums convenient to them.
proceedings under this section are in the nature of civil proceedings, the
remedy is a summary one and the person seeking that remedy, as we have pointed
out, is ordinarily a helpless person.
words should be liberally construed without doing any violence to the
language." As noted in the above said judgment the crucial expression for
the purpose of jurisdiction in respect of a petition which is filed by a father
is not where "parties reside" and "is".
to be noted that Clauses (b) & (c) of sub section (1) of Section 126 relate
to the wife and the children under Section 125 of the Code. The benefit given
to the wife and the children to initiate proceeding at the place where they
reside is not given to the parents. A bare reading of the Section makes it
clear that the parents cannot be placed on the same pedestal as that of the
wife or the children for the purpose of Section 126 of the Code.
basic distinction between Section 488 of the old Code and Section 126 of the
Code is that Section 126 has essentially enlarged the venue of proceedings for
maintenance so as to move the place where the wife may be residing at the date
of application. The change was thought necessary because of certain
observations by the Law Commission, taking note of the fact that often deserted
wives are compelled to live with their relatives far away from the place where
the husband and wife last resided together. As noted by this Court in several
cases, proceedings under Section 125 of the Code are of civil nature. Unlike
clauses (b) and (c) of Section 126(1) an application by the father or the
mother claiming maintenance has to be filed where the person from whom
maintenance is claimed lives.
been noted in Jagir Kaur's case (supra) the expression "is" cannot be
given the same meaning as the word "reside" or the expression
"the last resided".
connotes in the context the presence or the existence of the persons in the
district where the proceedings are taken. It is wider in its concept than the
word "resides" and what matters is his physical presence at the
particular point of time. No finding has been recorded by the High Court on
this particular aspect which needs a factual adjudication. The stand of the
appellant is that he practises in Patna and was not present in Siman physically when the application was filed
for maintenance. Respondent No. 2- father has indicated about the son practising
in the Patna High Court. Obviously if his son was practising at the time of
presentation of petition in the Patna High Court, he could not have been
physically present at Siwan, whatever extended meaning may be given to the
expression "is". In view of this the position is clear that the Court
at Siman has no jurisdiction to deal with the petition. One thing may be noted,
which can clear lot of cobwebs of doubt. The expression "is" cannot
be construed to be a fleeting presence, though it may not necessarily for considerable
length of time as the expression "resides" may require. Although the
expression normally refers to the present, often it has a future meaning. It
may also have a past signification as in the sense of "has been".
(See F.S. Gandhi (Dead) by LRs. V. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Allahabad (AIR 1991 SC 1866). The true
intention has to be contextually culled out.
circumstances we direct the transfer of the case to the Sessions Division of Patna,
with the direction that the learned Session Judge may pass appropriate orders
so that the matter can be placed before the court of competent jurisdiction. We
make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case
and/or on the truth or otherwise of the allegations relating to political
influence or pressure as alleged.
allow the appeal to the extent indicated.