PER ARUN KUMAR GOEL, JUDGE.

1. This is an application for transfer of proceedings pending before Sub- Judge, Kistwar to any Court at Jammu. Respondent initiate case under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of maintenance at Kistwar against the petitioner.

2. According to the averments made in the petition, parties were married in August, 1996 and after marriage lived as husband and wife in quarter No. 404, Muthi Camp, Jammu for sometime. Petitioner further claims himself to be a registered Migrant living in the said Camp. During the month of July, 1997, while petitioner was away to Delhi, respondent taking advantage of his absence left his house and went to Kistwar removing all the belongings property, etc., for which fact former come to know on return from his neighbours. Further case of the petitioner is that no proceedings could be taken up against him at Kistwar for want of jurisdiction. Besides this it is also the case of the petitioner that though he has engaged a lawyer at Kistwar, but himself is not in a position to go there because of threats extended to him by the respondent and he apprehends that in case he is made to go to attend the proceedings at Kistwar, he is likely to suffer some physical harm, because respondent is capable of doing so. In this back-ground, present petition has been filed.

3. Claims made by the petitioner has been seriously contested on behalf of the respondent, who has filed objections to the transfer application and have conrtroversed all the pleas of the petitioner. In addition to this, it has also been stated by the respondent that Kistwar Court has got jurisdiction to adjudicate her claim under Section 488(1) of the Cr.P.C. Further case of the respondent is that she has been forced to migrate to her parental house at Chinigam in Telisil Kistwar. Similar application has been filed before the learned Sessions Judge, Bhadarwah, which was also dismissed. This fact is pleaded in preliminary submission No. 3 of the objections filed by the respondent.

4. For the purpose of this Revision Petition, Section 488(8) Cr. P.C is material, which is to the following effect: -

488(8) 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.

As per this provision, the proceedings under Section 488 can be initiated against a husband in any District where he resides, or is, or where he last resided with his wife. This is the relevant provision in the present case. As per record, petitioner resides at Jammu as noted above at Muthi Camp. This was the position in the past as also he is residing there. Then the question that needs to be examined is whether the petitioner over last resided with the respondent at Chinigam as claimed by the later. In case answer is in the affirmative, then the said Court would have jurisdiction. According to the averments made in the application, respondent was living with the petitioner at Jammu, when in the month of July, 1997, she left her matrimonial home in the absence of the petitioner removing all her belongings, etc. In this context, it may be appropriate to notice that in Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 identical words have been used.

5. Prior to coming into force of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), (Central Act) provisions of Section 488 of the State Act were pari-materia as existed in the Central Act of 1998. However, keeping in view the purpose of providing speedy, as well as in a summary manner maintenance to the neglected wife and children, etc., Section 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been brought in the Central Act which is to the following effect: -

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, wit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document