Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The Revision Petitioner is the respondent in a proceeding for maintenance under Section 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 (? Naduvattam) are within the Kozhikode District, the petitioner is at liberty to move either of the Sub-Divisional Magistrates as per Section 488(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

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

The language is quite clear that the wife can proceed against her husband under Section 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 tound it easy to move the Malappuram Magistrate and she can do so since Malappuram and Naduvattam are within the same District, Kozhikode.

3. It is however contended by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that Section 488(8) is controlled by Section 12 of the Criminal Procedure Code and since Naduvattam is not one of the areas specified in the notification published in the Kerala Gazette, Part I dated 1st September, 19591 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 Naduvattam. However having regard to Section 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.

6. I therefore hold that the Malappuram Sub-Divisional Magistrate has jurisdiction to conduct the prosecutor. It must be mentioned here that both the learned Counsel and the public prosecutor to whom notice was issued assure me that the only notification defining the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Malappuram is the one referred to and the Public Prosecutor was supporting the position that the Magistrate, Malappuram had jurisdiction to try the case.

7. In the result the revision petition is dismissed.