BALKRISHNAN NAIR Vs. SULOCHANA AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petitioner is the respondent in a proceeding for maintenance under S.488, Criminal Procedure Code, pending before the Malappuram Sub-Divisional Magistrate. He is a resident of Naduvattam and that is also the place where he last resided with his wife. As Naduvattam is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kozhikode, he contended that the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Malappuram was not competent to conduct the proceedings. The Magistrate overruled the objection on the ground that since Malappuram as well as Kozhikode are within the Kozhikode District, the petitioner is at liberty to move either of these Sub Divisional Magistrates as per S.488 (8) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) The order of the learned Magistrate, is, I think, correct. S.488 (8) is that:-

(3.) It is however contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that S.488 (8) is controlled by S.12 of the Criminal Procedure Code and since Naduvattom is not one of the areas specified in the notification published in the Kerala Gazette, Part I dated 1st September 1959 which defines the territorial jurisdiction of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Malappuram, he has no jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings. The said notification is to the effect that Government is pleased to "establish a Sub Divisional Magistrate Court at Malappuram in the District of Kozhikode with effect from the 17th day of August 1959 and fix the jurisdiction of the said Sub Division to comprise the jurisdiction of the Sub Magistrates of Manjeri and Tirur, that is, the local limits of the following police stations..........." Fourteen stations are mentioned including Tirur but not Naduvattom. However having regard to S.12 of the Criminal Procedure Code, I do not think that the said notification by itself will have the effect of rendering the Sub Divisional Magistrate at Malappuram incompetent to conduct the present proceedings.