A wife’s genuine residence, not permanent residence, confers jurisdiction under Section 126 CrPC.

The revisionists challenged the Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital’s order dismissing their application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction

They pleaded that revisionist no. 1 and her minor child had been residing with her maternal aunt at Nainital for about two months before filing the application and had continued to reside there

The respondent argued that their residence at Nainital was adopted to harass him and invoke that court’s jurisdiction, relying on the parties’ connections to Delhi

The High Court confined its consideration to the Family Court’s territorial jurisdiction

1. Whether “resides” in Section 126(1) CrPC requires the wife or maintenance claimant to have a permanent residence within the court’s jurisdiction

2. Whether, on the pleaded facts, the revisionists’ residence at Nainital could confer territorial jurisdiction on the Family Court there

Section 126(1) CrPC governs the place where proceedings under Section 125 CrPC may be instituted. Its use of “resides” does not require the wife or claimant to establish permanent residence in that place

However, jurisdiction cannot be created through a purely artificial, fictitious, or colourable residence adopted solely to institute proceedings there; the absence of permanent residence, by itself, does not oust jurisdiction

The revisionists’ pleaded case was that they had lived at Nainital for about two months before filing and continued to live there, with an intention to remain

The Family Court’s focus on revisionist no. 1’s permanent and parental residence in Delhi did not address whether her actual residence at Nainital was genuine or merely colourable

The parties’ marriage and the child’s birth in Delhi were not, on their own, determinative of territorial jurisdiction

In the absence of a finding that the Nainital residence was sham or fictitious, the application could not be dismissed at the threshold solely because of the revisionist’s Delhi connections

It allowed the revision, set aside the order dated 12 November 2025, and remitted the matter to the Family Court, Nainital, to decide the application on its merits after hearing both parties