Section 125 Is Beneficial Legislation, Technical Objections Can't Defeat It: MP HC Upholds Wife's Maintenance

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a husband who takes part in maintenance proceedings without questioning the Family Court's territorial jurisdiction cannot raise that objection for the first time in revision, dismissing his challenge to a monthly maintenance award of Rs 3,000 to his wife.

Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal, sitting at Jabalpur, dismissed a criminal revision filed by Mahesh Ahirwar against a January 3, 2020 order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mandla. The Family Court had allowed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. filed by his wife, Urmila Ahirwar, and directed him to pay Rs 3,000 every month.

The parties married on May 7, 2017, and the wife has been living separately since February 2018. She approached the Family Court on November 24, 2018.

Appearing for the husband, advocate Sanjay Kumar Saini argued that the Family Court never had the authority to hear the matter. The wife lives in village Dongargaon, Tehsil Ghughari, while the husband lives in village Jamgaon, Tehsil Nainpur, both in Mandla district. Since neither resided in a cantonment or municipal area, or within the boundaries of the concerned tehsil, the application was not maintainable, he submitted.

He further contended that the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008, came into force on October 2, 2009, so only the Nyayadhikari of the Gram Nyayalaya could have decided an application filed in 2018. The Family Court's order, he said, was therefore a nullity. He relied on four rulings, including the Supreme Court's decision in Vijay Kumar Prasad vs State of Bihar.

Advocate Rajesh Kumar Namdeo, representing the wife, defended the impugned order and sought dismissal of the revision.

The High Court had earlier called for a report from the concerned District Judge. In its report dated February 28, 2022, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mandla, stated that under Section 126 of the Cr.P.C., the case did not fall within its jurisdiction because both parties were not residents of Tehsil Mandla or the Nagar Palika Parishad area. The husband's counsel relied on this report.

The High Court was not persuaded. Going through the reply filed before the Family Court, it found that the husband had "nowhere raised any objection" about jurisdiction on the ground of the parties' residence. "Neither during the course of evidence nor before passing of the final order dtd. 03.01.2020 was any such objection raised," the Court noted.

The Court then turned to two earlier rulings of coordinate Benches. In Ashok Kumar Tiwari vs Malti Bai, it was held that a jurisdictional objection cannot be entertained for the first time in revision when no foundation was laid before the trial court, and that such a defect is curable. In Praveen Bajpai vs Ku. Ayushi Bajpai, another Bench observed that the Family Court and the Gram Nyayalaya were situated in the same district and both could decide such applications, with the only bar being territorial.

The Praveen Bajpai ruling also stressed the welfare purpose of the provision, describing Section 125 as "beneficiary legislation" and adding that no party can be deprived of its benefit merely on a technical ground.

Relying on these decisions, Justice Bansal observed that since no objection on territorial jurisdiction was raised before the Family Court, the Court "does not find any illegality in the impugned order". The precedents cited by the petitioner, it added, "do not provide any help" to the husband.

The Court also considered the husband's income and financial status and, even otherwise, found no illegality in the Rs 3,000 monthly award. The revision was dismissed, and pending applications stood disposed of.

Case Title: Mahesh Ahirwar vs. Smt. Urmila Ahirwar

Date of Order: September 24, 2026

Bench: Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal