The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench, led by Justice G.S. Ahluwalia, recently clarified that the term “resides” under Section 126 CrPC refers to a permanent or habitual residence, not a temporary stay or a “flying visit.”
This ruling came in a case where the respondent (wife) filed a maintenance claim under Section 125 CrPC in the Family Court, Gwalior, for herself and her minor daughter. The petitioner (husband) challenged this, arguing that the respondent and their child lived in Delhi, not Gwalior, and that their marriage took place in Bhopal, where they lived before separation.
The husband contended that the wife used her parental home address in Gwalior to manipulate jurisdiction. He pointed out that she mentioned a Delhi address in another petition under Sections 9 and 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act and was also employed in Delhi.
In response, the wife stated that after the husband deserted her, she moved to her parental home in Gwalior. She argued that while she worked in Delhi, her permanent address was in Gwalior, giving the Family Court jurisdiction.
The Family Court ruled in favor of the wife, asserting its jurisdiction based on her parental home. However, the High Court disagreed, citing a precedent from the Madras High Court in K. Mohan v. Balakanta Lakshmi, which held that casual or temporary stays cannot establish residency under Section 126 CrPC.
The High Court noted that the respondent herself admitted to living in Delhi and found her interpretation of “resides” incorrect. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the husband, stating that the Family Court in Gwalior lacked jurisdiction to hear the maintenance claim.
Be a part our social media community:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IndianMan.in?mibextid=ZbWKwL
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/indianman.in?igsh=MWZ2N3N0ZmpwM3l3cw==
