AIR 2008 (NOC) 776 (BOM.) (NAGPUR BENCH) ::2008 CRI. L. J. (NOC) 291 (BOM.) = 2008 (1) AIR BOM R 411 (NAGPUR BENCH) ::2008 (1) AIR Bom R 411

Bombay High Court ( Nagpur Bench )

Hon'ble Judge(s): C. L. Pangarkar , J

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974) S. 126 , 462 - Maintenance — Jurisdiction of Court — Claim of maintenance by mother against her son — Son submitted to jurisdiction of Family Court without raising plea of want of jurisdiction during course of trial — Taking plea of want of Jurisdiction in revision filed against order of Family Court — Wording of Section 462 of Cr P Code is very clear that order shall not be set aside on the ground that trial, enquiry or proceedings took place in a wrong district or place — Court, therefore, in revision cannot set aside order of Family Court on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction — Lack of territorial jurisdiction may at the most be irregularity and not an illegality — The order, therefore, cannot be set aside on that count (Para 10)

(B) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974) S. 125 — Maintenance — Can be claimed by mother from her son irrespective of fact that her husband is alive {" Irrespective of the fact that the husband is alive, the mother would be entitled to claim maintenance from the son subject to other provisions of Section 125 of Criminal P. C. (Para 12) "}

(C) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974) S. 125 — Maintenance — Second application — Wife filing application against husband — Court granting maintenance from husband — That would not stop her from claiming maintenance from her son — It is her choice whether to apply for enhancement of maintenance against husband or to claim additional maintenance from son — It is also her choice as to from which of her sons she should claim maintenance {" A second application under Section 125 of Cr. P. Code may not be maintainable against the same person but when it is filed against the different person, it is maintainable. Section 125 of Cr. P. C. permits maintenance being claimed from husband, son as well as daughter. Therefore, there should be no difficulty in claiming maintenance from all three or any one of them or even two. Although she may have been granted maintenance from her husband that does not stop her from claiming maintenance from the son also, as the liability is of all the three under Section 125 of Cr. P. Code. It can be said that she has an independent cause of action and right against the son. The maintenance awarded to her against the husband in instant case is too meagre by any standard. It is her choice as to from which of her sons she should claim maintenance. (Para 12) "} .....