Patna High CourtCR. REV./94/2018dismissed

Gajadhar Kumar Singh v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2019-04-29Mr. Justice Birendra Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL REVISION No.94 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-1111 Thana- District- ====================================================== Gajadhar Kumar Singh, S/o Late Mahanth Singh @ Mahesh Prasad Singh, R/o Village - Mill Tola, Naugachhia, P.S. - Naugachhia, District - Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar 2.

Amrita Bharti, D/o Subodh Singh, W/o Gajadhar Kumar Singh, R/v Beldiha, P.O. - Sauriya, P.S. - Dandkhora, District - Katihar. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shambhu Sharan Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 29-04-2019 Heard the parties.

Matrimonial Case No. 83 of 2016 brought by opposite party no. 2 Amrita Bharti under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. against the petitioner was pending in the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Katihar.

The petitioner appeared and raised objection regarding territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Katihar on the ground that the opposite party no. 2 is real resident of Bhagalpur district as her name appears in the voter list of Gopalpur Assembly Constituency. School certificate of opposite party no. 2 also reveals that she was resident of village Gopalpur in the district of Bhagalpur. Opposite party no. 2 resisted the claim of the petitioner on the ground that after torture by the petitioner, she is residing

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.94 of 2018 dt.29-04-2019 2/2 within territorial jurisdiction of Katihar along with her father and father has got landed property in the district of Katihar. She produced certain document in proof thereof and after considering the evidences of the parties, the learned court below turned down prayer of the petitioner.

Section 126 Cr.P.C. provides that application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. may be taken against any person in any district (a) where he is, or (b) where he or his wife resides, or (c) where he last resided with his wife, or as the case may be, with the mother of the illegitimate child.

Apparently, the application has been filed within the jurisdiction of the district where the wife resides. Section 126 of the Cr.P.C. does not provide that the place of residence of the petitioner should necessarily be permanent residence. Hence, there is no merit in this criminal revision. Accordingly, it stands dismissed.

(Birendra Kumar, J) Kundan/- AFR/NAFR N.A.

CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 01.05.2019 Transmission Date 01.05.2019