Safiya Malik

The Delhi High Court has upheld the dismissal of a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), affirming that the Family Court in Delhi lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The court stated that the petitioner failed to establish her bona fide residence in Delhi, rendering her claim legally unsustainable.

The case involves a dispute between the petitioner and the respondent, who were married at Arya Samaj Mandir in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, and later conducted a Hindu ritual ceremony in Jaipur, Rajasthan. Following the marriage, the petitioner resided at her matrimonial home in Jaipur for approximately four months before returning to her parental home in the same city. The petitioner alleged that she was subjected to harassment and dowry demands by the respondent and his family, leading her to initiate divorce proceedings in Jaipur.

According to the petitioner, her life in Jaipur became difficult due to continued harassment and threats from the respondent and his family members. She claimed that multiple false complaints and FIRs were lodged against her and her family, prompting her to move to Delhi. She stated that she initially lived as a paying guest in Chhatarpur, Delhi, before securing a rental accommodation in the same locality. On 16.08.2021, she filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance from the respondent, asserting that she was a resident of Delhi.

The respondent contested the claim, arguing that the petitioner’s real residence remained in Jaipur. He provided documents from the petitioner’s divorce case in Jaipur, where she had declared her Jaipur residence under affidavit. The Family Court dismissed the petition for lack of territorial jurisdiction, stating that the petitioner had not adequately demonstrated residence in Delhi. The petitioner then filed a revision petition before the Delhi High Court, challenging the Family Court’s decision.

The petitioner argued that she had been residing in Delhi since 2021, presenting a paying guest agreement dated 11.08.2021 and a subsequent rent agreement dated 20.10.2022 to support her claim. She contended that the Family Court erroneously disregarded these documents and that the legal provisions under Section 126(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. permitted her to file the petition in the district where she resided.

She further stated that she had shifted to Delhi due to fear for her safety and that her residence in Delhi was genuine, as evidenced by her rent agreements and an examination admit card sent to her address. She also argued that technicalities regarding rent receipts should not outweigh the fact that she was living in Delhi.

The respondent countered by stating inconsistencies in the petitioner’s submissions. He pointed out that in her divorce proceedings in Jaipur, she had stated under affidavit that she resided in Jaipur. Additionally, he questioned the legitimacy of the paying guest agreement, noting that the stamp paper was purchased on 11.08.2021, executed on 13.08.2021, and notarized on 16.08.2021—the same day the maintenance petition was filed. The respondent also presented the fact that the property had two different landlords listed in separate rent agreements, further casting doubt on the petitioner’s claim of actual residence in Delhi.

He argued that the petitioner was attempting to manufacture jurisdiction by obtaining temporary accommodation in Delhi. He also pointed out that the petitioner had failed to produce a single rent receipt, which raised doubts about whether she had actually paid rent or lived in the rented premises.

The High Court examined the material placed on record and upheld the Family Court’s finding that the petitioner had failed to establish her residence in Delhi at the time of filing the maintenance petition. The court noted that "though a Rent Agreement dated 20.10.2022 was placed on record, no rent receipt was produced to corroborate that rent was actually being paid." The court further remarked that "the examination admit card presented by the petitioner merely showed that she was appearing for an exam in Delhi and did not establish her residence."

The court further examined the discrepancies in the rental documents. It was observed that "the first agreement filed by the petitioner named Mr. Amarjeet as the absolute owner, while the second agreement named Smt. Usha Rawat as the owner of the same property. The lack of clarity in ownership and execution of two agreements for the same property casts doubt on the authenticity of the claim." Additionally, the court noted that the first agreement was labelled as a "Paying Guest-cum-Rent Agreement" and granted no independent tenancy rights, which further weakened the petitioner’s argument of permanent residence in Delhi.

Moreover, the court referred to the earlier order of the Mahila Court in Saket, which had dismissed the petitioner’s case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, on similar jurisdictional grounds. The court noted that "in the domestic violence case, the petitioner had similarly claimed residence in Delhi, but the Mahila Court had determined that there was no sufficient evidence to establish that she had permanently moved to Delhi."

The fact that she did not challenge that order further reinforced the conclusion that her alleged residence in Delhi was not genuine.

The court also cited the precedent set in Sachin Gupta v. Rachana Gupta: 2019 (257) DLT 87, where it was held that "a residence temporarily acquired solely for conferring jurisdiction would not satisfy the requirements of Section 126(1) of the Cr.P.C." The court applied this principle and concluded that the petitioner had failed to prove her bona fide residence in Delhi.

The court additionally noted that while the petitioner claimed to have moved to Delhi due to harassment in Jaipur, she had not placed on record any FIRs or complaints allegedly filed against her. The absence of such documents weakened her claim that she had been forced to relocate to Delhi.

The Delhi High Court dismissed the revision petition, stating: "This Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order of the learned Family Court dismissing the petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for lack of territorial jurisdiction, and the same is upheld." However, the court granted the petitioner the liberty to file a fresh petition before the court having appropriate territorial jurisdiction.

Case Title: Kostubh Dadhichi Anshu v. Aditya Juniwal

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC: 1330

Case Number: CRL.REV.P. 384/2024

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

[Read/Download order]