Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Magistrate at Ludhiana had territorial jurisdiction under Section 488(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to entertain the maintenance petition.
Analysis: The provision was construed as creating three alternative forums, namely where the husband resides, where he is, or where he last resided with his wife. The words were held to require a liberal construction, because the remedy is summary and intended to secure urgent relief to a deserted wife or helpless child. The expression "resides" was held to include permanent as well as temporary abode, provided there is animus manendi, and to exclude only a casual or flying visit. The expression "last resided with his wife" was read as referring to the last residence in India within the territorial operation of the Code. The word "is" was held to mean the husband's physical presence in the district when the proceedings are initiated, regardless of the duration or character of the stay.
Conclusion: The Magistrate at Ludhiana had jurisdiction to entertain the maintenance petition because the husband had last resided with his wife there and was also present in that district when the petition was filed.