JUDGEMENT
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD,J -
(1.)This petition under Sec. 397/401 Cr.P.C read with Sec. 482 Cr.P.C is
directed against Order dtd. 7/3/2020 passed by the Ld. Principal Judge,
Family Court, Patiala House Courts wherein it dismissed the application filed
by the Petitioner herein under Sec. 126 Cr.P.C.
(2.)Facts, in brief, leading to the present petition are stated as under:
a) The Petitioner/husband and the Respondent/wife got married on 4/2/2014 in Faridabad, Haryana. On 29/1/2016, a daughter was born to the Petitioner and the Respondent.
b) On 2/8/2014, i.e. almost six months after the marriage, the Petitioner herein rejoined his previous company, Qatar Airways, and relocated to Qatar, and the Respondent/wife went to Qatar to stay with the Petitioner. The Respondent/wife, along with the minor child, returned to India on 13/6/2016, but she did not go to her matrimonial home, i.e. Sector-7, Faridabad. It is alleged that when the Petitioner came to India on 21/7/2016, the Respondent/wife refused to allow him to meet their child.
c) Due to the disputes between both the parties, a number of cases have been filed by them against each other which are as follows:
i. CAW Cell complaint was filed by the Respondent/wife on 20/7/2016 in New Delhi.
ii. Child custody case was filed by the Petitioner/husband on 29/7/2016 in Faridabad.
iii. DV Act Complaint filed by Respondent/wife on 10/8/2016 in New Delhi.
iv. A complaint under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C was filed by the Respondent/wife on 24/8/2018 in New Delhi.
d) The Respondent/wife then filed an application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC on 15/4/2017 in the child custody petition filed by the Petitioner herein before the Ld. Family Court, Faridabad. The Ld. Family Court, Faridabad, after relying on the documents filed by the Respondent/wife in support of her DV case i.e. doctor's bills, electricity bills etc. dismissed the said application vide Order dtd. 20/7/2017 holding that the Respondent/wife does not live in Delhi and, hence, Faridabad was the correct Jurisdiction. The said Order was upheld by the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court vide order dtd. 30/4/2019.
e) The Petitioner then moved an application under Sec. 126 of Cr.P.C. before Family Court, New Delhi, based on the Order dtd. 20/7/2017 of the learned Family Court, Faridabad. He further filed a list of evidences on 5/5/2019 in support of his claim in Family Court, New Delhi. The Respondent/wife also filed her reply and documents in order to support her stance about Delhi as jurisdiction.
f) The learned Principal Judge vide order dtd. 7/3/2020 dismissed the application filed by the Petitioner/husband under Sec. 126 of Cr.P.C. stating that based on the documents submitted by the Respondent/wife, she is presumably staying in Delhi, and therefore, the jurisdiction for purposes of maintenance under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. would be Delhi.
g) It is this Order dtd. 7/3/2020 passed by the Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, New Delhi, which has been challenged in the instant petition.
(3.)Heard Ms. Roma Bhagat, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, and
perused the material on record.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.