SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1941 Supreme(Mad) 445

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Horwill, J.
V. Balakrishna Naidu
Versus
Mrs. B. Sakuntala Bai
Decided On : 10.12.1941

Interpretation of the term 'reside' in the context of jurisdiction under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code.

Headnote:

Jurisdiction - Maintenance - Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code - Section 488 - [Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code] - The court discussed the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to award maintenance under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. The court interpreted the term 'reside' and concluded that the petitioner was not residing in Trichinopoly with his wife at the time of the application for maintenance, thus the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the case.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an Assistant Engineer, ill-treated his wife during a visit to Trichinopoly and was found guilty of cruelty. The wife brought an application for maintenance, and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate awarded her Rs. 50 a month.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner was not residing in Trichinopoly with his wife at the time of the application for maintenance, thus the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the case.

Issues: Jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to award maintenance under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the term 'reside' and concluded that the petitioner was not residing in Trichinopoly with his wife at the time of the application for maintenance, thus the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the case.

Final Decision: The order of the Magistrate was set aside as one without jurisdiction.

ORDER

Horwill, J.

1. The petitioner was an Assistant Engineer in the Mysore State for 9 years. He then took service with the Ceylon Government; but after sometime gave up that post because his wife (the petitioner in the lower Court) refused to live with him there. He then returned to his old post in Mysore and rented a house in the Bangalore Civil and Military Station. Although he and his wife had not been getting on well for many years, she consented to come and live with him in Bangalore after Panchayatdars had mediated between them. She had been there for about two months, when the petitioner who had left her jewels in Ceylon because he apprehended that he would have to pay customs duty if he brought them back to India with him, persuaded his wife to accompany him back to Ceylon and wear the jewels; for by her so doing, they could avoid paying duty on them. On their return from this short visit to Ceylon, they halted at Trichinopoly, where both the brother of the petitioner and her father live, and went to stay in the house of the petitioners brother. During the few days they remained there, the petitioner ill-treated his wife--the Magistrate finds--and drove her out of the house. She then went to her fathers house. On the following day, the husband, with the help of some friends and servants, attempted to abduct her from her fathers house; but failing in their attempt, assaulted her. The petitioner then returned to his duties in the Mysore State. As a result of what happened in Trichinopoly, the wife brought an application for maintenance in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at Trichinopoly. The Magistrate was satisfied that the wife had proved cruelty against her husband and that she was therefore entitled to separate maintenance. He awarded her Rs. 50 a month.

2. We cannot go behind the finding of fact of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, which is reasonable on the evidence; and so Mr. Viswanatha Aiyar has confined his arguments to the question of the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Trichinopoly to award maintenance under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. Section 488, Clause (8), says that "proceedings under that section may be taken against any person in any District where he resides or is, or where he last resided with his wife ..." The question is whether during those four days in which the petitioner was staying at Trichinopoly, he was residing there with his wife ? I have been taken through the evidence of the husband and of the wife and there can be no doubt that the petitioner intended returning to his house in Bangalore with his wife and resuming his duties as Assistant Engineer in the Mysore State. The expression reside implies, something more than stay. It is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as "to dwell permanently or for a considerable time; to have ones settled or usual abode; to live in or at a particular place." The word therefore implies some intention to remain at a place and not merely to pay it a casual visit, intending shortly to move on to ones permanent residence. This is the purport of the decision of a Bench of the Lahore High Court in Charan Das v. Surasti Bai I.L.R. (1940) Lah. 755 : A.I.R. 1940 Lab. 449. The lower Court considered that the petitioner had no permanent place of residence; for wherever the petitioner went in the Mysore State he lived in a rented house and it was in a rented house that he lived in, Bangalore. The learned Magistrate concluded that as the petitioner had no permanent place of residence, he must be deemed to have resided wherever he stayed. He stayed last at Trichinopoly; and so last resided in that town. The Magistrates reasoning cannot however be accepted. A person who follows a profession must necessarily have some place of residence in which he can keep his wife and family and store his furniture and goods and to which he can return when he is not on tour. He can as well be said to reside in a rented house as in a house of which he is the



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top