The mere definition of the territorial jurisdiction of a Magistrate cannot prevent him from exercising jurisdiction in other areas of the same district unless expressly excluded.

1. The Revision Petitioner is the respondent in a proceeding for maintenance under S.488, Criminal Procedure Code, pending before the Malappuram Sub-Divisional Magistrate. He is a resident of Naduvattam and that is also the place where he last resided with his wife. As Naduvattam is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kozhikode, he contended that the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Malappuram was not competent to conduct the proceedings. The Magistrate overruled the objection on the ground that since Malappuram as well as Kozhikode are within the Kozhikode District, the petitioner is at liberty to move either of these Sub Divisional Magistrates as per S.488 (8) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

2. The order of the learned Magistrate, is, I think, correct. S.488 (8) is that:

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

The language is quite clear that the wife can proceed against her husband under S.488 in any of the districts where he resides, or is, or where he last resided with her. This wide choice of forum, given presumably as a concession to the neglected wife, is not to be narrowed by any unduly strict interpretation of the term district. The aggrieved person in this case who is living with her parents at Tirur found it easy to move the Malappuram Magistrate and she can do so since Malappurarn and Naduvattam are within the same District, Kozhikode.

3. It is however contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that S.488 (8) is controlled by S.12 of the Criminal Procedure Code and since Naduvattom is not one of the areas specified in the notification published in the Kerala Gazette, Part I dated 1st September 1959 which defines the territorial jurisdiction of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Malappuram, he has no jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings. The said notification is to the effect that Government is pleased to "establish a Sub Divisional Magistrate Court at Malappuram in the District of Kozhikode with effect from the 17th day of August 1959 and fix the jurisdiction of the said Sub Division to comprise the jurisdiction of the Sub Magistrates of Manjeri and Tirur, that is, the local limits of the following police stations " Fourteen stations are mentioned including Tirur but not Naduvattom. However having regard to S.12 of the Criminal Procedure Code, I do not think that the said notification by itself will have the effect of rendering the Sub Divisional Magistrate at Malappuram incompetent to conduct the present proceedings.

S.12 reads:

12 (1) The "State Government" may appoint as many persons as it thinks fit, besides the District Magistrate, to be Magistrates of the first, second or third class in any district outside the presidency-towns; and the "State Government" or the District Magistrate, subject to the control of the "State Government" may, from time to time, define local areas within which such persons may exercise all or any of the powers with which they may respectively be invested under this Code.

(2) Except as otherwise provided by such definition, the jurisdiction and powers of such persons shall extend throughout such district.

Reading the section as a whole it is clear that the mere definition of the territorial jurisdiction of a Magistrate cannot by itself prevent him from exercising jurisdiction in other areas of the same district unless the order fixing his territorial jurisdiction does either expressly or by necessary implication exclude the other areas from his jurisdiction.

4. I am fortified in this view by several decisions of the various High Courts. In Gulabrao v. Emperor AIR. 1935 Bom. 409, while considering the combined effect of S.12 [1] and [2] His Lordship Beaumount,

C.J. observed that:

"Sub-section (2) seems to me to be a saving clause which prevents the mere carving up of the d