Jurisdiction under maintenance law depends on settled residence, and a temporary halt does not cure a complete lack of jurisdiction.

For jurisdiction under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code, "residing" requires a settled or intended abode, not a casual temporary stay. On the facts, the husband had made Bangalore his home and his brief presence at Trichinopoly was only transitory, so Trichinopoly was not the place where he last resided with his wife. Section 531 did not cure the defect, because it cannot validate a complete absence of jurisdiction. The maintenance order was accordingly set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at Trichinopoly had jurisdiction under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the footing that the husband had last resided there with his wife, and whether Section 531 of the Criminal Procedure Code cured any defect in jurisdiction.

Analysis: The decisive question was whether the husband's brief stay at Trichinopoly amounted to "residing" there with his wife. "Reside" imports a settled or intended abode and is not equivalent to a casual stay. On the facts, the husband had made Bangalore his home and intended to return there; the stay at Trichinopoly was only temporary while passing through to Bangalore. Trichinopoly therefore was not the place where he last resided with his wife. The defect was not cured by Section 531, because that provision does not validate the wrongful exercise of jurisdiction by a court which otherwise had none, particularly where the court approached is a foreign court for the purpose in question.

Conclusion: The Trichinopoly court had no jurisdiction under Section 488, and Section 531 did not validate the order. The maintenance order was set aside in favour of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: For Section 488, "residing" means a settled or intended abode and not a casual temporary halt, and Section 531 does not cure a complete lack of jurisdiction.

---