RAHMATH SAHEB Vs. ZAINABI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 439, Criminal Procedure Code ('Code') is by the husband challenging the order for maintenance made under Section 488 of the Code, whereby an allowance of Rs. 30/ -per mensem has been directed to be paid to the wife from the date of the petition.

(2.) THE facts need not be set out at length in view of the questions raised on behalf of the petitioner. The learned Magistrate found that the respondent had been in fact deserted by her husband within the meaning of the provisions of Section 488 of the Code and the husband's offer to maintain her was not bona fide. He further found that the wife's refusal to reside with her husband was justified.

(3.) IN elaboration of the first contention, Sri Shetty drew attention to the circumstances in the evidence bearing on the question of residence of the husband for the purposes of Section 488 (8) of the Code and contended that the husband's stay for a few days at the wife's place before leaving for Bombay was of a casual nature and would not bespeak of the necessary 'animus manendi' which is necessary to vest jurisdiction in the Court at Mangalore to try the case. For this proposition he relied on an enunciation of the Supreme Court in Mst. Jagir Kaur v. Jaswant Singh, AIR 1963 SC 1521 : (1963 (2) Cri LJ 413).