Mulla, J.

[1] This is an application of revision arising out of proceedings under Section 488, Criminal P. C.

[2] Shrimati Rabbo, daughter of Dilley Kabaria resident of Lucknow, filed an application under Section 488. Criminal P. C., against her husband Mohammad Rasul, a resident of Barabanki. She claimed that she was the married wife of Mohammad Rasul and out of this marriage a son named Abdul Khaliq was born. This marriage took place some four or five years before filing the case and she went to Barabanki to live with her husband there.

Her husband acted cruelly towards her and occasionally gave her a beating. On one occasion he threw her down the stairs as a result of which she received such a severe injury in her hip joint that she has become a cripple. According to her, after she received this injury, her husband brought her to Lucknow for treatment and resided with her at Lucknow for about five or six months. He then deserted her and in spite of her efforts to secure maintenance from him, he refused to maintain her. She had been living with her father at Lucknow all this time.

[3] Mohammad Rasul admitted that Shrimati Rabbo was his married wife and Abdul Khaliq aged about one year was his son. He however, denied that he ever illtreated Shrimati Rabbo. He also denied that he resided with Shrimati Robbo at Lucknow at her father's house. It was contested on his behalf that the Lucknow Courts had no jurisdiction to hear these proceedings.

[4] The trial court accepted the version given by Shrimati Rabbo and found that Mohammad Rasul had resided at Lucknow for five or six months when he had brought her for treatment and thus the Lucknow courts had jurisdiction to hear this case. It ordered Mohammad Rasul to pay his wife Shrimati Rabbo Rs. 15/- per month as her own maintenance allowance and Rs. 8/-per month as the maintenance allowance for Abdul Khaliq.

Mohammad Rasul went up in revision against the order of the trial Court, but the Sessions Judge, Lucknow, maintained the order holding that as the trial court had accepted the case of the wife about her husband staying in Lucknow for five or six months with her, which statement was corroborated by two witnesses, the Lucknow courts had jurisdiction in these proceedings. Mohammad Rasul has now come up in revision before this Court.

[5] The counsel for the applicant before me has urged two grounds. Firstly, it was contested that Mohammad Rasul did not reside with Shrimati Rabbo at Lucknow and the trial court has erred in evaluating the evidence on that point. This question has been concluded by the findings of fact and I am not willing to reopen it. I find that the statement of Shrimati Rabbo is support-eel by two other witnesses and the trial court was entitled to believe these statements in preference to the version given by Mohammad Rasul or his witnesses.

Them is no illegality committed by the trial court in believing the wife's version and I see no reason to re-assess the evidence on that point.

[6] The second contention raised by the counsel for the applicant was that the Lucknow courts had no jurisdiction to hear this case, even if it is admitted that Mohammad Rasul came and stayed at the house of his father-in-law for about five or six months, as his permanent residence is at Barabanki. According to him this visit of Mohammad Rasul to Lucknow was only a casual visit and cannot be interpreted as residing together within the meaning of Sub-section (8) of Section 488, Criminal P. C. Sub-section (8) of Section 488 Criminal P. C., runs as follows:

"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, .........................."

In my opinion the words of the section contemplate that there are three places where proceedings can be started by a wife against her husband under Section 488, Criminal P. C. Firstly, she can proceed against him in the district where he resides, secondly in the di