N.D. Patnaik, J.
1. Respondents 1 and 2 who are wife and child of the petitioner have filed a petition M.C. 19/81 for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the court of the Munsif Magistrate, Khammam alleging that the petitioner neglected to maintain them. The petitioner took objection to the jurisdiction of the court contending that as the respondents were, residing at Bhadrachalam, the Munsif Magistrate's Court at Khammam' had no jurisdiction. The learned Munsif Magistrate accepted the contention and dismissed that petition. Against that a revision petition was filed before the Sessions Judge, Khammam who allowed the same and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal after giving opportunity to parties to adduce further evidence. After remand, the Munsif Magistrate, Khammam held that the court has got jurisdiction and also accented the case of the respondents i.e. petitioners in M.C. that the petitioner neglected to maintain them and awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/- P.M. for the wife and Rs. 100/- p.m. for the child. Against that the petitioner tiled a revision to the Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge who heard the revision held that the court of the Munsif Magistrate, Khammam has jurisdiction and also accepted the contention that the petitioner neglected to maintain the wife and child and dismissed the revision.
2. Questioning the same, this petition is filed. In this petition the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Munsif Magistrate's court at Khammam has no jurisdiction to order maintenance as the wife and child are living at Bhadrachalam. Section 126 Crl.P.C. says that proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. may be taken against any person in any District (a) Where he is or (b) where he or his wife resides or (c) where he last resided with his wife or as the case may be with the mother of the illegitimate child. The husband resides in some village in Krishna District where the parties last resided together. That is not the court in which the petition was filed. The wife filed the petition in the Khammam Court giving her address at Khammam. The petitioner-in M.C. 19/81 i.e. wife who is examined as PW 1 deposed that she is living with her cousin brother in Khammam. PW 3 who is her cousin brother deposed that the petitioner is living with him and PW 4 who is a neighbour of PW 3 had deposed that the petitioner and her child are living at Khammam in the house of PW 3. The learned Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge have held that the petitioner is residing at Khammam relying on the evidence. In this petition the learned counsel for the petitioner had referred to the allegation in para 3 of M.C. 19/81 in which the petitioner in MC 19/81 had alleged that after her husband had driven her out of the house, she along with her minor son were forced to take shelter at the house of her parents and now are living as destitutes at the mercy of others. He had argued that as the parents of the wife are living at Bhadrachalam, this allegation shows that the wife and child are living at Bhadrachalam and not at Khammam. He has also referred to Ex. R-4 which is a certificate issued by office of the Sub-Collector, Bhadrachalam to the effect that the wife had filed a petition for Widow's pension before the Sub-Collector, Bhadrachalam and that was not granted-.'He further commented that the evidence of PW 3 is not at all convincing to prove that. PW 1 is residing at Khammam. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents i.e. wife and child had pointed out that even though they went to the house of the parents of the wife at Bhadrachalam after being driven out by the husband, subsequently she went to Khammam and is living with her cousin brother by the time of filing of the petition, as could be seen from her evidence and he further contended that since both the courts below have accepted the evidence of PWs. 1, 3 and 4 on the question of fact, i.e. wife and the child are living at Khammam, there are no grounds to interfere in this Petition. He has further pointed out that under Section 126 Cr. P.C. the proceedings can be taken in any District where the wife resides and since Bhadrachalam is also part of Khammam District and even if the petitioner has gone to her parents house at Bhadrachalam, still the petition can be filed in any Munsif Magistrate's court in Khammam District. In view of the fact that both the learned Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge have accepted the evidence of PWs. 1, 3 and 4 that the wife and child are living in the house of PW 3 at Khammam, I do not find any grounds to interfere. Moreover as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents proceedings can be taken in Khammam District even if the wife is residing at Bhadrachalam. Therefore, there is no lack of jurisdiction.
3. The next question as to whether the husband neglected to maintain the wife and child or about the quantum of maintenance, the evidence has been considered by both the courts below and finding was given on question of fact stating that the husband has neglected to maintain the wife and child and awarded maintenance of Rs. 150/- and Rs. 100/- p.m. respectively. I see no illegality or lack of jurisdiction. There are no grounds to interfere. Hence this petition is dismissed.