(1.) In this case the revision petitioner, wife, had filed an application for maintenance under S.488 Crl. P.C., in the court of the First Class Magistrate of Neyyattinkara. The allegation in the petition was that it was within the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate that they last resided, as husband and wife. On a consideration of the evidence led by the parties, that allegation has been found against. It is not open to the petitioner to challenge that finding in revision. On this finding, the learned Magistrate held that -the husbands residence being in Muttathara Pakuthy which is in Trivandrum Taluk within the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate of Trivandrum, he had no jurisdiction to decide the case.
(2.) From the order of the learned Magistrate it is seen that the husband is employed at Pappancode in the body building section of State Transport department and this place of employment is admittedly within the jurisdiction of Neyyattinkara court.
(3.) The object of the section no doubt was to confer jurisdiction upon the court within the district in which the permanent residence or home of the husband happens to be situated. But the word or is used in the sub-section is not without significance. By the use of the word or is the intention of the legislature appears to be that proceedings may be taken against the husband who had no permanent residence within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate concerned, but who might be easily found there. The object is to make it as easy as possible for an aggrieved person to obtain an order of maintenance under the provisions of the section. Sub-s.(8) should be construed liberally so that a helpless woman is not deprived of assistance from a court easily accessible to her. I am therefore of opinion that even though the place of residence is not within the jurisdiction of Neyyattinkara Magistrate, since the counter petitioner, the husband is employed within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate the Magistrate gets jurisdiction to try the case.