SREEDHARAN, J.

Counter petitioner in M.C. 196/1991 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Nadapuram is the petitioner. That petition was filed by respondent herein invoking the provisions of S. 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as "the 1986 Act," claiming maintenance and reasonable and fair provision under the Act. She filed that petition on the allegation that she is residing within the territorial jurisdiction of that Court. Petitioner herein, who was the former husband, disputed the competence of that Court to take cognizance of the petitioner on the ground that the divorced woman has no residence within its territorial limits. By Annexure-E order dated 19-10-1992, the learned Magistrate took the view that petitioner before him resides in her maternal house, which is situated within its territorial limits and hence competent to entertain the petition. That order is under challenge.

2. In the petition filed before this Court, the former husband took up an additional ground that after the establishment of the Family Court in Kozhikode, that Court alone has the jurisdiction to entertain and continue the petition filed by the divorced woman.

3. When this petition came up for admission, a learned single Judge opined that in view of the importance of the question involved, the petition should be posted for admission before a Division Bench. Consequently, it has come up before us. We directed notice of this petition on the divorced woman by special messenger and the Director General of Prosecution. Both appeared and extensive arguments were heard.

4. The first question that arises for consideration is whether M.C. 196/1991 filed by the divorced woman before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nadapuram invoking the provisions of S. 3 of the 1986 Act is maintainable or not before that Court. As per that 1986 Act, Magistrate of the First Class exercising jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the area where the divorced woman resides has got jurisdiction to entertain the application under S. 3. Thus if the divorced woman resides within the territorial limits of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Nadapuram, then that Court is the Court to entertain the application filed by her under Section 3 of that Act. Annexure-A is the copy of the application put in by the divorced woman before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Nadapuram. In that, she had specifically averred that she is permanently residing with her relatives at Nadapuram. She gave that address, as a resident of Kunnoth in Kummangode Amsom, Nadapuram Desom. This averment regarding the place of residence of the divorced woman was disputed by her former husband on the basis of the address given by her in a Caveat Petition, No. 6 of 1988, filed in the Munsiff's Court, Quilandy. In that Caveat Petition, she gave her address as Chittaripoyil in Kinaloor Amsom Desom in Quilandy Taluk. That is a house situated outside the territorial limits of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nadapuram and so the Nadapuram Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed under S. 3 of the 1986 Act.

5. Before divorce was actually effected between the parties, husband tried to initiate proceedings before the civil court for getting an order of injunction restraining the wife from entering into his house and property. To prevent an ex-parte order being issued against her by the Munsif, she filed Caveat O.P. 6 of 1988. In that petition, she gave the above mentioned address. Thereafter divorce was effected. After the divorce, she had to leave the place and take shelter under her mother's relatives. Her mother's relatives are at Nadapuram. So, she had come over to Nadapuram for her permanent stay. According to the learned counsel representing the petitioner, the former husband, her visit to her relatives at Nadapuram is only a casual or flying visit and her residence