The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench headed by Justice G.S. Ahluwalia, has recently held that the word “resides” under Section 126 CrPC cannot be a place where one makes ‘a casual stay or a flying visit’.

In this case, the Respondent/wife had filed an application under Section 125 CrPC before the Family Court, Gwalior against the husband, seeking maintenance for her and their minor daughter. The Petitioner/husband moved an application against her under OVII R11 CPC, wherein he had argued that since the Respondent and the daughter were residing in Delhi, the cause of action did not arise at Gwalior. He had further submitted that he and the Respondent got married in Bhopal and were residing in Bhopal before getting separated.

The husband also said that in order to bring the matter under the jurisdiction of Gwalior, the Respondent (wife) had mentioned the address of her parents. Therefore, he had asserted that the court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the application for maintenance and the same was liable to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

The Petitioner (husband) had also brought the attention of the Court to the Respondent’s petition under Section 9 and 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, wherein she mentioned her address to be of Delhi and that she was working there as well.

The Respondent in her reply had submitted that after she was deserted by the Petitioner, she moved to her parental home in Gwalior. She stated that she was merely serving at Delhi, whereas her permanent address was at Gwalior. Therefore, she had contended that the lower court had jurisdiction to entertain the application.
The family court rejected the application of the Petitioner on the ground that since the Respondent/wife had her parental home in Gwalior, the court had jurisdiction to hear the application.

Relying on the decision of the Madras High Court in K. Mohan v. Balakanta Lakshmi, the Court held that a casual stay or a flying visit to a particular place cannot be treated as a part of the word “reside”. Further referring to the submissions of the Respondent, the Court noted that she herself had admitted that she was living with her daughter in Delhi.

Examining the submissions of the parties and documents on record, the Court observed that the Respondent was wrongly interpreting the word ‘resides’ under Section 126 CrPC.

With the aforesaid observations, the Court allowed the revision preferred by the Petitioner/ husband who was aggrieved by the order passed by the family court, whereby his application under OVII R11 was rejected.

The Court further held that the family court, Gwalior did not have jurisdiction to entertain the application of the Respondent under Section 125 CRPC.