PURUSHOTHAMAN Vs. MALLIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision arises out of proceedings initiated by a woman under S.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') claiming maintenance for her child from the petitioner herein (the respondent in the lower court) who is said to be the father of the child. Petitioner raised a contention in the lower court regarding want of territorial jurisdiction to entertain that petition. Learned Magistrate repelled the said contention as per the impugned order. Hence he has come up in revision.

(2.) The petition for maintenance was filed in the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Vadakkancherry. The objection regarding jurisdiction is on the premise that the petitioner and the respondent are residing at Thalakkottukara Amsom in Chiranalloor Village which is situated within the jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kunnamkulam. There is no dispute that the court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Vadakkancherry and Kunnamkulam are within the Revenue District of Trichur. The contention here is that the person who filed the petition for maintenance should have approached the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kunnamkulam, since no reason is given for choosing the other court.

(3.) S.126(1) of the Code says that proceedings under S.125 may be taken against any person "in any district -- (a) where he is, or (b) where he or his wife . resides, or (c) where he last resided with his wife, or as the case may be, with the mother of the illegitimate child". The Section does not restrict the choice of the court within whose jurisdiction he/she resides or last resided as the case may be. The expression "in any district" must be given its normal meaning so as to afford maximum convenience to the person who makes the claim for maintenance. Under the Old Code of 1898 S.488(8) which corresponds to S.126(1), proceedings could have been taken "against any person in any district where he resides or is, or where he last resided with his wife or, as the case may be, with the mother of the illegitimate child". The Bombay High Court has held, while dealing with jurisdictional scope of proceedings initiated under S.488(8) of the Old Code that "in interpreting the word district' in S.488(8) of the Code, it is not only the word 'district' which one must have regard to, but the entire expression "any district where he resides" The express use of word district' should not be given any meaning different from normal connotation of that word and, in view of express use of words "any district where he (husband) resides", it cannot be limited only to a court within that district within whose jurisdiction husband resides". (Vide Shantabai v. Visnupant, AIR 1965 Bombay 107). The Patna High Court has held in Baleshwari Devi v. Bikram Singh (AIR 1968 Patna 383) that "any magistrate of the class referred to in sub-section (1) of S.488 is competent to entertain such a proceeding provided the husband resides or is, or last resided with his wife or the mother of the illegitimate child within the district in which such magistrate is functioning". Way back in 1961, this court has pointed out (in Balakrishnan Nair v. Sulochana Amma ( 1961 KLT 690 ) that "the language of S.488(8) is quite clear that the wife can proceed against her husband in any of the district which he resides or is, or where he last resided with her. This wide choice of forum given presumably as a concession to the neglected wife, is not to be narrowed by any unduly strict interpretation of the term district".