The Bombay High Court has clarified that temporary residence, even without permanent registration, is sufficient to establish territorial jurisdiction for maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC. This ruling reinforces the protective intent of statutory maintenance provisions and prevents technical objections from denying relief to vulnerable spouses and children.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The revision petitioner, Nissar Shaikh, challenged the Family Court, Aurangabad’s order directing him to pay Rs. 5,000 per month each to his wife and minor son under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He contended that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction because the marriage was solemnized and the couple’s permanent residence was in Degloor, Nanded. His wife, Fatima Almara, had moved to her brother’s residence in Aurangabad to seek medical treatment for their ailing son.
Procedural History
- 2019: Wife filed Maintenance Petition No. E-5 of 2019 before the Family Court, Aurangabad
- 2024: Family Court ordered maintenance of Rs. 5,000 per month to wife and son
- 2024: Husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 302 of 2024 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought setting aside of the maintenance order on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and alleged non-disclosure of income. He also highlighted his financial burdens from multiple marriages, dependent elderly relatives, and absence of documentary proof of his earnings.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 126(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits a wife to file a maintenance petition in a district where she is temporarily residing with family members, even if her permanent residence and marital home lie elsewhere.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Counsel argued that Section 126(1) requires jurisdiction to be based on permanent residence, not temporary stay. He emphasized that the wife’s presence in Aurangabad was neither permanent nor linked to the husband’s whereabouts. He further contended that the Family Court erred in relying on uncorroborated oral testimony regarding income and medical treatment, and that multiple pending proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act indicated abuse of process.
For the Respondent/State
Counsel for the wife submitted that Section 126(1) explicitly includes "where she resides" as a valid jurisdictional ground, without requiring permanence. She produced evidence of her stay at her brother’s residence in Aurangabad to facilitate her son’s medical care, which constituted a legitimate reason for shifting. The absence of formal documentation was not fatal, as Section 125 proceedings are summary in nature and designed for swift relief.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a purposive interpretation of Section 126(1), rejecting a narrow, literal reading that would undermine the statute’s protective purpose. It held that the phrase "where she resides" encompasses temporary residence, particularly when necessitated by medical or familial exigencies. The Court observed that requiring permanent residence would render the provision ineffectual for women forced to leave marital homes due to hardship or abuse.
"Section 126(1) of Cr.P.C. does not contemplate permanent place of residence and therefore it cannot be said that proceedings are necessary to be issued only from registered permanent address."
The Court further noted that the wife’s assertion of residence with her brother was not contradicted by any material evidence. The husband’s claim that the son received no treatment in Aurangabad was speculative and unsupported by medical records - yet the burden of disproving residence did not rest on the wife in a summary proceeding. The Court also declined to treat the husband’s multiple marriages or financial obligations as grounds to reduce maintenance, emphasizing that Section 125 obligations are independent of personal circumstances beyond the statutory duty to maintain.
The quantum of Rs. 5,000 per month was deemed reasonable in light of the husband’s admitted involvement in real estate and the wife’s lack of independent income. No patent perversity or illegality was found in the Family Court’s findings.
The Verdict
The petitioner’s revision was dismissed. The Court held that temporary residence with family members qualifies as "residence" under Section 126(1) CrPC, and that the Family Court, Aurangabad, had valid jurisdiction. The maintenance order of Rs. 5,000 per month to both wife and son was upheld as fair and proportionate.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Temporary Residence Is Sufficient for Jurisdiction
- Practitioners must now argue that Section 126(1) covers any place where the wife is living, even temporarily, including with relatives
- Jurisdictional objections based solely on permanent address or registration must be rejected unless the claim of temporary residence is demonstrably false
- Evidence of medical need, domestic hardship, or safety concerns strengthens the claim of residence
Maintenance Amounts Must Reflect Realistic Earning Capacity
- Courts will consider indirect evidence of income, including verbal admissions and occupational context, even without formal documents
- Financial obligations from subsequent marriages or dependents do not extinguish prior statutory duties under Section 125
- Maintenance orders are not reduced merely because the husband claims financial strain from other responsibilities
Summary Proceedings Are Not a Barrier to Fair Adjudication
- The informal nature of Section 125 proceedings does not permit dismissal on technical grounds
- Oral testimony, when uncontradicted and plausible, suffices in the absence of contrary evidence
- Multiple pending proceedings under other statutes (e.g., DV Act) do not invalidate a maintenance petition
