Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

The applicant herein raised an objection in continuance of maintenance application filed by the respondent herein (wife) under Section 125 of the CrPC is not maintainable as the Judge, Family Court, Rajnandgaon has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same because the respondent/wife lastly resided at Jagdalpur. The Family Court has passed the impugned order holding that the respondent is residing temporarily with his father's sister (Bua) as her parents are not able to maintain her, against which, this criminal revision has been filed questioning that order.

2. Mr. Renu Kochar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, would submit that the impugned order passed by the Family Court deserves to be set aside as under Section 126 (1) of the CrPC proceeding would lie where the respondent/wife is residing with her parents. She would further submit that the respondent could not have been filed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC before the Family Court, Rajnandgaon and the Family Court, Rajnandgaon has no jurisdiction to hear that application.

3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant, considered her rival submission and perused the order impugned.

4. In order to judge the correctness of the plea raised at the Bar, it would be appropriate to notice sub-section (1) of Section 126 of the CrPC, which provides for venue of the maintenance proceeding. Section 126 (1) of the CrPC provides as under :-

"126. Procedure.-(1) Proceedings under section 125 may be taken against any person in any district-

(a) where he is, or

(b) where he or his wife resides, or

(c) where he last resided with his wife, or as the case may be, with the mother of the illegitimate child."

5. A studied perusal of the above-stated provision would show that proceeding under Section 125 of the CrPC to be taken against a person in any district where the husband resides or where he is, or his wife resides, or where husband last resided with his wife or as the case may be, with the mother of illegitimate child.

6. The word 'reside' has been defined in Straud's Judicial dictionary, fifth edition as under :-

"(1) .................

(2) What is the meaning of word "Resides". I take it that the word, where there is nothing to show that it is used in more extensive sense, denotes the place, where an individual eats, drinks and sleeps or his family or servants eat, drink & sleep (See Bayley J.R. v. Northcary 4B SC 959. Aman's Residence ix where he habitually sleeps."

7. In Websters dictionary also the word 'reside' finds a similar meaning, which may be gainfully extracted :

"1. To dwell for a considerable time; to make one's home; live. 2. To exist as an attribute or quality with in. 3. To be vested: with in."

8. Way back, in the year 1963, the Supreme Court in the matter of Mst. Jagir Kaur & another v. Jaswant Singh AIR 1963 SC 1521 while dealing with Section 488(8) of the Cr.P.C., 1898 which is pari-materia provision to Section 126 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 held that word "Resides" means something more than the flying visit to or a casual stay in a particular place, and there must be animus manendi (intention to stay in particular place) and pertinently held as under :-

"5. The only question in the appeal is whether the Magistrate of Ludhiana had jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed under section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The question turns upon the interpretation of the relevant provisions of section 488(8) of the Court, which demarcates the jurisdictional limits of a Court to entertain a petition under the said section. Section 488 (8) of the Code reads :

"Proceedings under this section may be taken against any person in any district where he resides or is, or where he last resided with his wife, or, as the case may be, the mother of the illegitimate child."

The crucial words of the sub-section are, "resides", "is" and "where lie last resided with his wife". Under the Code of 1882 the Magistrate of the District