The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has dismissed a criminal revision filed by a husband challenging a Family Court order granting his wife monthly maintenance of ₹3,000 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal passed the order on September 24, 2026, holding that the objection concerning the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court could not be raised for the first time at the revision stage when no such objection had been taken during the original proceedings.
The petitioner-husband and respondent-wife were married on May 7, 2017. According to the proceedings, the respondent-wife had been living separately since February 2018. She subsequently filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance.
The Principal Judge, Family Court, Mandla, allowed the application on January 3, 2020, and directed payment of ₹3,000 per month to the wife. The husband challenged this order before the High Court, arguing that the Family Court did not have territorial jurisdiction because the parties resided in different areas of Mandla district. He also relied on the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008, arguing that the application under Section 125 CrPC could be entertained only by the Nyayadhikari of the concerned Gram Nyayalaya and not by the Family Court.
The High Court had earlier sought a report from the concerned District Judge regarding the jurisdiction of the Family Court. The report stated that, considering the residences of both parties, the matter did not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court, Mandla.
However, the Court noted that the husband had not raised this objection before the Family Court. It was not taken in his reply, during evidence, or before the final order was passed. The High Court therefore examined whether such an objection could be introduced for the first time in revision.
Referring to its earlier decisions in Ashok Kumar Tiwari v. Malti Bai and Praveen Bajpai v. Ku. Ayushi Bajpai, the Court noted that a party who participated in the proceedings without objecting to territorial jurisdiction could not ordinarily raise that objection for the first time at the revision stage. The Court also referred to the earlier decision in Praveen Bajpai, which described Section 125 as beneficial legislation and held that a party could not seek to defeat its benefit merely on a technical territorial-jurisdiction objection at that stage.
The High Court ultimately found no illegality in the Family Court's order. It also independently considered the husband's income and financial status and found no reason to interfere with the monthly maintenance amount of ₹3,000.
The Court concluded:
“Resultantly, instant criminal revision fails and is hereby dismissed.”
Accordingly, the criminal revision was dismissed, and the maintenance order passed by the Family Court, Mandla, was left undisturbed.
Case Title: Mahesh Ahirwar v. Smt. Urmila Ahirwar
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 723 of 2020
