P V ISAAC Vs. SUSAN ISAAC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision petition is directed against the continuance of the proceedings in Miscellaneous Case No. 15/1955 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's Court at Kottayam. The proceedings in that case have been initiated under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the wife of the revision petitioner, claiming maintenance from him on the ground that he is neglecting to maintain her. While admitting the relationship of the parties, the revision petitioner had denied the several allegations made against him by his wife in support of her claim for separate maintenance from him. He also questioned the jurisdiction of the Sub Divisional Magistrate at Kottayam to initiate proceedings against him under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the reasons stated by him being that he is permanently residing at Ootacamund outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at Kottayam, This matter was considered as a preliminary issue by the learned Magistrate in the light of the evidence given by the petitioner by her own examination and production of certain documents. On 25-10-1956 the learned Magistrate passed an order overruling the objection of lack of jurisdiction and holding that he had jurisdiction to proceed with M. C. 15/1955 even though the counter-petitioner in the case is a permanent resident of Ootacamund for the time being. The counter- petitioner has filed the present revision petition challenging the correctness of the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The point urged in the revision petition is that the Magistrate has assumed a jurisdiction not vested in him under law.

(2.) It is not disputed that the revision petitioner is residing at Ootacamund and that his residence there commenced some time prior to the filing of M. C. No. 15/1955 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's Court at Kottayam. There is also no doubt that Ootacamund is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at Kottayam. But the position taken up by the respondent is that her husband the revision petitioner has got a, permanent place of residence at Kottayam also viz., Palathingal House at Kottayam and that it was at Palathingal House that both of them resided last and that such residence is sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at Kottayam to entertain M. C. No. 15/1955. The question of jurisdiction in respect of such proceedings is governed by the Special provision contained in sub-section 8 of Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That sub-section states that:

(3.) The result is that the revision petition fails and it is dismissed.