0

S.125 CrPC Courts should not raise objections regarding residential proof of child/wife, must accept duly sworn affidavits: Karnataka High Court

 

This particular decision is held by the High Court Of Karnataka through the Single bench of single bench Justice E.S.Indresh, sitting at Dharwad in the case of  Sangeeta & Others v. Bapu

Facts

In this matter, though relevant documents have not been produced by the petitioners to say that they are residing at Dharwad, however, the petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that she is residing with her aunt  Meenakshi Ritti house Dharwad. Since the petition is filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C which is summary proceedings, the same requires the immediate action by the family court to safeguard the destitute wife and children.

Orders and Judgements

Since Section 125 of Cr.P.C is a social measure providing immediate relief to the destitute wife and children, prima-facie, accepting the duly sworn affidavit by aggrieved parties (wife and children) that they are residing away from the matrimonial home and the address shown in the affidavit is to be accepted.

 Indeed the Family Court ought to have accepted the address provided in the petition supported by an affidavit by the petitioners and should have issued notice to the respondent.

It added, “Raising objection with regard to residential proof of the petitioners at that juncture itself would defeat the very purpose of scope of Section 125 of Cr.P.C.”

Further the bench opined, “May be jurisdictional aspect is required with regard to the competency of the Court, however, such a requirement may be an exception to the provisions under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.”

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement reviewed by- Mohammed Shoaib

Click here to view the judgement 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat