Purushothoman vs Mallika

Thomas, J.—This revision arises out of proceedings initiated by woman u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ''the code'') claiming maintenance for her child from the petitioner herein (the respondent in the lower court) who is said to be the father of the child. Petitioner raised a contention in the lower court regarding want of territorial jurisdiction to entertain that petition. Learned Magistrate repelled the said contention as per the impugned order. Hence he has come up in revision.

The petition for maintenance was filed in the Judicial First Class Magistrate''s court, Vadakkancherry. The objection regarding jurisdiction is on the premise that the petitioner and the respondent are residing at Thalakkottukara Amsom in Chiranalloor village which is situated within the jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kunnamkulam. There is no dispute that the court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Vadakkancherry and Kunnamkulam are within the Revenue District of Trichur. The contention here is that person who filed the petition for maintenance should have approached the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class Kunnamkulam, since no reason is given for choosing the other court.

Section 126(1) of the Code says that proceedings u/s 125 may be taken against any person "in any district - (a) Where he is or his wife resides, or (c) where he last resided with his wife, or as the case may be, with the mother of the illegitimate child". The section does not restrict the choice of the court within whose jurisdiction he/she resided as the case may be. The expression "in any district'' must be given its normal meaning so as to afford maximum convenience to the person who makes the claim for maintenance. Under the Old Code of 1898 Section 488(8) which corresponds to Section 126(1), proceedings could have been 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, with the mother of the illegitimate child"; The Bombay High Court has held while dealing with jurisdictional scope of proceeding initiated u/s 488(8) of the Code that "in interpreting the word district'' in Section 488(8) of the Code, it is not only the word district, which one must have regard to, but the entire expression "any district where he resides''. The express use of the word district''s should not be given any meaning different from normal connotation of that word, in view of express use of words "any district where he (husband) resides", it cannot be limited only to a court within that district within whose jurisdiction husband resides". (Vide Shantabai Vs. Vishnupant Atmaram Kulkarni, ). The Patna High Court has held in Smt. Baleshwari Devi Vs. Bikram Singh, that "any magistrate of the class referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 488 is competent to entertain such a proceeding provided the husband resides or is, or last resided with his wife or the mother of the illegitimate child within the district in which such magistrate is functioning". Way back in 1961 this Court has pointed out in Balakrishnan Nair v. Sulochana Amma 1961 KLT 690, that "the language of Section 488(8) is quite clear that the wife can proceed against her husband in any of the district which 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 be narrowed by any unduly strict interpretation of the term district."

Here, there is no warrant to the position that the proceedings should have been initiated in the judicial First Class Magistrate''s, court at Kunnamkulam where both parties reside.

In the result, dismiss this revision.