<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1963 (2) TMI 73 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295383</link>
    <description>Section 488(8) CrPC was construed to confer three alternative territorial forums for a maintenance petition: where the husband resides, where he is physically present, or where he last resided with his wife. &quot;Resides&quot; was given a liberal meaning to include permanent or temporary abode with animus manendi, excluding only a casual or fleeting visit. &quot;Last resided with his wife&quot; was read as the last such residence in India within the Code&#039;s territorial operation. &quot;Is&quot; was held to mean the husband&#039;s physical presence in the district when proceedings are initiated. On that construction, the Magistrate at Ludhiana had jurisdiction because the husband had last resided there with his wife and was present there when the petition was filed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Jun 2021 16:04:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=645663" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1963 (2) TMI 73 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295383</link>
      <description>Section 488(8) CrPC was construed to confer three alternative territorial forums for a maintenance petition: where the husband resides, where he is physically present, or where he last resided with his wife. &quot;Resides&quot; was given a liberal meaning to include permanent or temporary abode with animus manendi, excluding only a casual or fleeting visit. &quot;Last resided with his wife&quot; was read as the last such residence in India within the Code&#039;s territorial operation. &quot;Is&quot; was held to mean the husband&#039;s physical presence in the district when proceedings are initiated. On that construction, the Magistrate at Ludhiana had jurisdiction because the husband had last resided there with his wife and was present there when the petition was filed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295383</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>