Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a maintenance application by a father under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be instituted in the district where the son was said to reside, and whether the court at Siwan had jurisdiction under Section 126 of the Code.
Analysis: Section 126 provides alternative forums for maintenance proceedings, but the broader venue conferred by clauses relating to where the wife or child resides does not extend in the same manner to a parent claiming maintenance. In the case of a father, the relevant forum is the district where the person from whom maintenance is claimed is present or resides. The expression "is" denotes physical presence in the district, not a mere fleeting or notional presence, and the statutory language must be construed according to its context. On the facts, no finding had been recorded by the High Court on the appellant's presence at Siwan, but the materials indicated that he was practising at Patna, which meant the Siwan court could not assume jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The maintenance proceeding at Siwan was held to be without jurisdiction, and the matter was ordered to be transferred to Patna for being placed before the competent court.
Ratio Decidendi: In a maintenance proceeding by a parent, jurisdiction under Section 126 of the Code lies where the person from whom maintenance is claimed is physically present or resides, and the enlarged forum available to a or child does not extend to a parent.