ABDUL QAYYUM Vs. MRS. DURDANA BEGUM AND OTHERS,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts which give rise to this revision are these. The respondents herein filed a petition in the Court of the 1st Class Magistrate. Armoor for the grant of maintenance under Section 488 Criminal Procedure Code, alleging that the respondent No. 1 who is the lawfully wedded wife of the petitioner was ill-treated by the Petitioner about seven months prior to the filing of the petition, at a time when the respondent No. 1 was pregnant and was driven away from, the house of the petitioner after taking all the gold ornaments belonging to her. Thereafter the respondent No. 2 was born to the respondent No. 1. The petitioner herein has not at all been maintaining both the respondents and therefore they prayed for the grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month to the 1st respondent and Rs. 23/- per month for the 2nd respondent. It has also specifically been stated in petition that the petitioner herein resides at Nizamabad proper and the respondents reside at Armoor. which is within the district of Nizamabad and therefore, the First Class Magistrate. Armoor had jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The petitioner appeared before the court, filed his counter and contended that the First Class Magistrate Armoor had no jurisdiction to entertain that petition, as admittedly the petitioner herein was residing at Nizamabad therefore, it was the First Class Magistrate at Nizamabad which was the proper Court.

(2.) The trial court rejected the contention advanced by the petitioner on the ground that provisions of Section 488(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure are very wide in their amplitude and cover any court within the district in which the husband resides. A revision was preferred to the Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, who also confirmed the conclusion arrived at by the trial court and held that the First Class Magistrate. Armoor had jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Hence this revision.

(3.) Mr. Anjaneyulu appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein contends that tine lower courts were incorrect in their interpretation of Section 488 (8) Criminal Procedure Code. It is true, as pointed out by the Supreme Court that Section 488 Criminal Procedure Code prescribes alternative forums to enable a discarded wife or a helpless child legitimate or illegitimate, to get urgent relief. Proceedings under the section can be taken against the husband or the father, as the case may be. in a plaice where he resides, permanently or temporarily, or where he last resided in any district in India or where he happened to be at the time the proceedings are initiated; but the learned advocate contends that that does not mean any court in a District in which the husband resides or has jurisdiction to hear the petition under Section 488 Criminal Procedure Code. I am of the opinion that the contention advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner has some force. Section 488(8) Criminal Procedure Code provides as follows :