1. The jurisdiction conferred by the S. 125 CrPC on the Magistrate (or ld. APJ-PJ as the case may be of a Family Court) is more in the nature of a “preventive” rather than a “remedial jurisdiction” and it is certainly not “punitive”.
2. When the “social” purpose of S. 125 Cr.P.C. is to ‘prevent vagrancy and destitution’ the ‘cause of action’ for proceedings under S. 125 Cr.P.C. arises at the place where the person claiming maintenance is and is apt to face vagrancy and destitution. It is, no doubt true that proceedings can be instituted at the place where the defendant resides because that would be the place where ultimately the order of maintenance, if passed, would be enforced, but, this question comes with a rider which are explained next.
3. All that is required to produce if challenged by defendant is Proof Affidavit of her parents that their daughter being destitute and living under vagrancy resides with them. Now, it is defendant side's contentions that she does not reside there and for the same if stressful arguments done with admissible evidences as ‘preliminary objections’ such as RTI reply of no name of hers in parents ration card, RTI reply of no name of hers in local Electoral List, RTI reply of no name of hers in local RTO issued Driving License, RTI reply of her passport not of same jurisdiction, RTI reply of she not working in any Govt. school within jurisdiction limits of the specific Court , Reply from all pvt. schools, collages, all education institutions within jurisdiction limits of the specific Court that she does not work there etc. and instead most and/or few and/or all of these are pointing to some other jurisdiction than local Court's jurisdiction limits then a case is in hand otherwise for such summary maintenance cases Court does not entertain 'jurisdiction' requests.