1963 (2) TMI 73 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 488(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Interpretation of the terms "resides," "is," and "last resided" in Section 488(8).
3. Quantum of maintenance awarded to the appellants.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 488(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The primary issue was whether the Magistrate of Ludhiana had jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The respondent contended that he never resided within the jurisdiction of Ludhiana, nor did he last reside with the first appellant in any place within its jurisdiction. The Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge held that the court had jurisdiction as the husband and wife last resided together in Ludhiana. However, the High Court disagreed, stating that the husband's permanent home was in Africa and his visits to Ludhiana were temporary, thus not establishing jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, however, held that the Magistrate of Ludhiana had jurisdiction as the respondent "last resided" with his wife in Ludhiana and was present in the district when the petition was filed.

2. Interpretation of the terms "resides," "is," and "last resided" in Section 488(8):
The Supreme Court analyzed the terms "resides," "is," and "last resided" to determine jurisdiction under Section 488(8). The term "resides" was interpreted to include both permanent and temporary residence, excluding casual or flying visits. The term "is" was defined as the physical presence of the person in the district at the time the proceedings are initiated, which is broader than "resides." The term "last resided" was interpreted to mean the last temporary residence within the territories of India, excluding foreign countries.

3. Quantum of maintenance awarded to the appellants:
The Magistrate awarded maintenance to the first appellant at the rate of Rs. 100 per month and to the second appellant at the rate of Rs. 50 per month, considering the respondent's salary and property value. The Additional Sessions Judge confirmed this quantum. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court did not question the quantum of maintenance but only the jurisdiction. Since the Supreme Court held that the Magistrate had jurisdiction, it restored the Magistrate's order regarding the maintenance amount.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Magistrate of Ludhiana had jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 488(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The terms "resides," "is," and "last resided" were interpreted broadly to include temporary residence and physical presence. The quantum of maintenance awarded by the Magistrate was restored, and the High Court's order was set aside.