KHAIRUNNISSA Vs. BASHIR AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the complainant filed an application under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code for maintenance against her husband. The learned Presidency Magistrate, Sixth Court, held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the application as the stay of the respondent of about eight days in Bombay with the applicant could not be said to constitute "residence" within the meaning of Sub-section (8) of Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In support of his view he relied on the case of Ramdie V/s. Jhunni Lal 95 Ind. Cas. 596 : 27 Cr.L.J. 820 : 3 C.W.N. 231 : A.I.R. 1926 Oudh 268 : 13 O.L.J. 597, where it was held that the words "last resided" in Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code did not contemplate a mere casual residence in a place for a temporary purpose and that where the husband is employed as a carpenter in the Railway workshops in Lahore and has been residing there continuously for eleven years, a temporary sojourn to Lucknow by him with his wife would not confer on the Lucknow Court jurisdiction to entertain an application by the wife for maintenance under that section.

(2.) It is urged on behalf of the applicant that the view taken by the lower Court is erroneous and reliance is placed on the decision in Mrs. E. H. Jolly V/s. St. John William Jolly 40 Ind. Cas. 706 : 21 C.W.N. 872 : 18 Cr.L.J. 706, where the husband ordinarily resided outside Calcutta but was temporarily in Calcutta on the date of the application, and it was held that the temporary residence was sufficient to give the Catcutta Court jurisdiction under Sub-section (8)of Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(3.) The husband did not appear in the lower Court to contest the application. The applicant stated on oath that she was married to the opponent at Ambarakpur in the United Provinces about two and a half years ago. Then they went to Surat and lived there for six or seven months and on account of ill-treatment she came to her father in Bombay from Surat. The respondent then came a day later and stayed with her father for about eight days and told her father that he would try and find employment but left afterwards, and after she learnt that he was at Karachi, she sent him a notice through a Pleader to provide for her maintenance and subsequently filed. the present application. The question, therefore, in this case is whether the opponent last resided with his wife in Bombay.