ABDUL SALAM SOFI Vs. DILSHADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge, Baramulla, recommending the setting aside of an order of the Judicial Magistrate, Baramulla dated 24.11.1983. The brief facts may first be noticed.

(2.) ON 15.10.1981, an application under Section 488 Cr. PC. was filed by the respondent seeking maintenance for herself and the minor child of the parties in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Baramulla. Pursuant to the notice issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate, the husband non-applicant appeared before the court and filed objections on 19.1.1982. The parties thereafter led evidence in support of their respective cases and after the evidence was concluded, the case was posted for final argument to 28.9.1982. The case was not argued on the date and was adjourned from time to time at the request of learned counsel for the parties when on 11.11.1983, the husband non-applicant filed an application stating therein that since he resides at Mazhama, tehsil Beerwah and had last resided with his wife at the same place, therefore the learned Judicial Magistrate, Baramullah, had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application as the same lay with the Judicial Magistrate, Magam. The wife applicant resisted the application and filed her objections in which, inter alia, she stated that except for a couple of months, she had not lived with her husband in the matrimonial home. She also stated the since the husband non-applicant had not raised any objection to the jurisdiction at the earliest stage when he filed his objections on 19.1.1982 or thereafter till the evidence was concluded, he could not at this late stage be beard to raise a plea of lack of jurisdiction for, he had acquiesced in so far as the jurisdiction was concerted. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Baramulla, consequently rejected the application which led to filing of a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge who agreed with the contention of the husband non-applicant and overruling the submissions of the wife applicant, has made a reference to. this court to set aside that order further holding that the provisions of section 531 Cr. PC. could not come to the aid of the applicant wife because, the order of the trial court rejecting the plea of the husband non-applicant was not a final order.

(3.) SECTION 488 Cr. PC. is a piece of social legislation amd has to be construed liberally and beneficially so as to advance the intent of the Legislature and the courts must realise that no interpretation is placed on these provisions, which are in the nature of summary provisions, which frustrate the object of the Provisions. The Legislature while enacting Section 488 Cr. PC. had in mind the prevention of vagrancy and the desirability of ensuring that a deserted wife does not fall into evil hands on account of financial difficult ties on being turned out of the matrimonial home. These objectives must, for ever, remain present to the mind of the courts while deciding applications for grant of maintenance under Section 488 Cr. PC.