TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Proper Jurisdiction Key in Maintenance Claims: Case Transferred to Ensure Fair Adjudication Under Section 126</h1> <h3>Vijay Kumar Prasad Versus State of Bihar and Ors.</h3> The SC allowed the appeal, emphasizing the significance of proper jurisdiction under Section 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance claims. ... - Issues:Jurisdiction under Section 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance claim.Analysis:The case involved a dispute between a father and his sons regarding a maintenance claim under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The father filed an application in Siwan, which the son wanted to transfer to Patna citing political influence and lack of legal representation. The High Court rejected the transfer application without specifically addressing the jurisdiction issue raised by the son.The appellant argued that the Court at Siwan lacked jurisdiction as he resided in Patna and practiced law there. The respondents contended that since the High Court had already dismissed the political influence claims, the jurisdiction issue could not be raised. The Supreme Court noted that while the case was a transfer petition, the jurisdiction question was crucial and needed examination due to the relationship of the parties.Section 126 of the Code allows proceedings for maintenance to be initiated where the person from whom maintenance is claimed resides. The Court highlighted the importance of jurisdiction in such cases, emphasizing the need for a liberal interpretation to provide relief to vulnerable parties. The distinction was made between the jurisdiction for wives/children and parents under Sections 125 and 126.The Court clarified that Section 126 expanded the venue for maintenance proceedings to include where the wife resides at the time of application. It was noted that the physical presence of the person from whom maintenance is claimed is essential for determining jurisdiction. The Court directed the transfer of the case to Patna for adjudication by the competent authority, without expressing any opinion on the case's merits or political influence allegations.In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of proper jurisdiction under Section 126 for maintenance claims and directing the transfer of the case to the Sessions Division of Patna for further proceedings under the appropriate jurisdiction.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
