DAWALSAB versus KHAJASAB

Citation: [2009] 10 S.C.R. 1006 · Decided: 15-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 10 S.C.R. 1006 
A 
DAWALSAB 
'\ ...., 
v. 
KHAJASAB 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1236 of 2009) 
B 
JULY 15, 2009 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
) . 
Family Courts Act, 1984 - ss. 7 and 8 - Petition filed by 
father under s. 125 CrPC for monthly maintenance from son 
c before Family Court, Bijapur - Son working in Syndagi -
Whether the Family Court had jurisdiction to entertain the 
petition - Held, Yes - Syndagi also falls within Bijapur district 
-
Under s.126(1 )(a) CrPC, jurisdiction for filing any 
proceeding under s. 125 would be in Bijapur itself where 
t 
D Family Court for the district is situated - Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973 - ss. 125 and 126(1). 
Appellant is the father of the respondent. He filed 
petition under Section 125 CrPC. for payment of monthly 
E maintenance of Rs.5,000/- from the respondent on the 
ground that having become old and not having any 
source of income, he was unable to maintain himself, 
whereas the respondent was employed in Anjuman 
College, Syndagi and was well off. The petition was 
F 
dismissed by the Family Court, Bijapur on the ground 
that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the petition 
which ought to have been filed in the Court within whose 
jurisdiction, the appellant resided. The revision petition 
filed by appellant was dismissed by the High Court. 
G 
In appeal to this Court, it was contended that the 
High Court proceeded on an erroneous basis in 
)._ 
~ 
interpreting the provisions of Section 126(1)(a) Cr.P.C. 
without taking note of the very initial wordings of Section 
126(1) Cr.P.C. which provides that proceedings under 
H 
1006 
DAWALSAB v. KHAJASAB & ANR. 
1007 
Section 125 Cr.P.C. may be taken against any person in 
A 
. l''---1 
any district and qualifies clauses {a), (b) and (c) thereof. 
It was submitted that in the instant case, having regard 
to the provisions of Sections 7 and 8 of the Family Courts 
Act, 1984, the only forum in which application for 
maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. could have been 
B 
filed by the appellant was before the Family Court of the 
district which was situated at Bijapur and since Syndagi 
. 
·'( 
also fell within the district of Bijapur and was subject to 
the jurisdiction of the Family Court at Bijapur, the petition 
had been rightly filed before the Family Court. It was c 
contended that the High Court misconstrued the 
provisions of Section 126(1) CrPC without taking note of 
the provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1984. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
D 
... >f 
HELD:1.1. The wordings have been interpreted by 
the High Court and the Family Court to mean that the 
petition ought to have been filed in Syndagi where the 
respondent was working. Both the Family Court Judge 
-
and the High Court appear to have missed the fact that 
E 
an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has to be taken 
~ 
against any person in any district where the person is. 
In the instant case, Syndagi also falls within Bijapur 
district. Accordingly, under Section 126(1)(a) Cr.P.C., the 
jurisdiction for filing any proceeding under Section 125 
F 
would be in Bijapur itself where the Family Court for the 
district is situated and since Syndagi is within the said 
district. [Para 8) [1011-B-D] 
1.2. The petition had been rightly filed before the 
G 
Family Court at Bijapur, which is situated in Bijapur, since 
.. 1 
under Section 8(b) of the Act the magistrate's jurisdiction 
under Chapter IX Cr.P.C. has been excluded. Reading the 
opening words of Section 126(1) Cr.P.C. with Section 
7(2)(a) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, it is quite clear that 
H 
1008 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R. 
A it was the Family Court at Bijapur which had the 
jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the appellant 
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. [Para 9] [1012-D-E] 
1.3. The orders passed by the Family Court and the 
8 High Court are set aside and the matter is remanded to 
the Family Court at Bijapur for fresh consideration in 
accordance with law. [Para 10] [1012-F-G] 
Vijay Kumar Prasad v. State of Bihar 2004 (5) SCC 196 
and Jagir Kaur v. Jaswant Singh AIR 1963 SC 1521, referred 
C to. 
D 
Case Law Reference : 
2004 (5) sec 196 
AIR 1963 SC 1521 
referred to 
referred to 
Para 4 
Para 4 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 1236 of 2009. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 12.03.2008 of the High 
E Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Revision Petition (FC) No. 
F 
27 of 2007 (Crl. Misc.) 
Girish Ananthamurthy and P

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.