Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

The petitioner herein is husband, facing proceeding under Section 125 of the CrPC at the behest of his wife, the respondent herein, who filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dongargarh claiming maintenance in which the present petitioner appeared and filed objection that the respondent wife is resident of Dhamtari and therefore the application for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC is not maintainable which was rejected by the learned ACJM and upheld by the revisional Court against which this petition under Section 482 of the CrPC has been preferred by the petitioner husband.

2. Mr. Sunil Pillai, learned counsel for the petitioner husband, would submit that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction in view of the Family Court having been constituted for the entire district of Rajnandgaon under Section 3 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. He would further submit that since the respondent wife is resident of Dhamtari as disclosed by him in the proceeding under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, therefore, the application is not maintainable.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders and copies of other documents with utmost circumspection.

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 Vs. 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 and another v. Jaswant Singh, (1963) AIR 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 s. 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The question turns upon the interpretation of the relevant provisions of s. 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 wit