Skip to content


N. Ramarao Mane Vs. Radha Rukmini Bai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1973CriLJ547
AppellantN. Ramarao Mane
RespondentRadha Rukmini Bai
Excerpt:
- constitution of india -- article 226: [ram mohan reddy,j] writ of quo warranto - election to membership of gram panchayat - second respondent, contested the election - production of bcm b caste certificate - false claim made by the second respondent that he belongs to bcm b category, though he belonged to bcm a category - cancellation of the caste certificate issued to the second respondent prayer for a writ of quo- warranto to oust the second respondent from the post of member of the gram panchayat held, reservation, is a part of constitutional scheme with the object of betterment of backward classes. therefore, if, a person who does not belong to a particular backward class for which the elective office is reserved, and masquerades as a person belonging to said category and gets..........at mysore and when he could not succeed in obtaining a transfer he took his wife to his house in bangalore and he began to ill-treat her. the court below further found that about a month thereafter, the father of the respondent (wife) went to bangalore and brought her to mysore on 31.8.1965. the findings arrived at by the court below, on consideration of evidence, being findings of fact cannot be challenged in revision.5. on these proved facts it has to be determined whether the contention with regard to jurisdiction has substance in it. it is found that after her marriage on 5.6.1964 till a month prior to 31.8.1965, the respondent (wife) was staying at mysore in her parents house and the revision petitioner (husband) who was a travelling railway ticket examiner was residing.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Ahmed Ali Khan, A.C.J.

1. This revision petition is preferred against the order of the City Magistrate Mysore, dated 23.12.1971, passed in C. Mis. 222 of 1970 on the file of his court. That order was made in a proceeding under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The petitioner in this Court is the husband and the respondent is the wife. The respondent filed an application under Section 488 of the Cr.P.C. against her husband on the ground of cruelty on the part of the husband. It was alleged that the husband abused and deserted her and refused to maintain her.

3. In his objection statement, the husband denied each and every allegation that was put forth by the petitioner (wife) in her petition. It was further contended on behalf of the husband that the City Magistrate. Mysore, has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition inasmuch as according to her own showing, the petitioner was residing with her husband in Bangalore when she was taken away from his house by her father.

4. Mr. Mariappa, the learned Advocate, for the revision petitioner argued that it is not disputed that the husband of the petitioner resides in Bangalore. He submitted that it is also not disputed that the revision petitioner last resided in Bangalore and it is not denied by the respondent (wife) that when she was taken away from house of the revision petitioner by her father she had been residing with the revision petitioner at Bangalore. It was urged by him that in these circumstances, it cannot be said that the court below has jurisdiction to entertain the petition inasmuch as the revision petitioner was not residing within the territorial jurisdiction of that court.

Sub-section (8) to Section 488, Cr.P.C. reads:

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 court below on consideration of evidence found that ill treatment and cruelty as alleged by the wife is proved. It further held that it is established by the evidence that the petitioner and respondent were married on 5.6.1964 and as the revision petitioner (husband) who was an employee in the Railway Department was trying to get a transfer from Bangalore to Mysore, he was putting up with his father-in-law at Mysore and when he could not succeed in obtaining a transfer he took his wife to his house in Bangalore and he began to ill-treat her. The court below further found that about a month thereafter, the father of the respondent (wife) went to Bangalore and brought her to Mysore on 31.8.1965. The findings arrived at by the court below, on consideration of evidence, being findings of fact cannot be challenged in revision.

5. On these proved facts it has to be determined whether the contention with regard to jurisdiction has substance in it. It is found that after her marriage on 5.6.1964 till a month prior to 31.8.1965, the respondent (wife) was staying at Mysore in her parents house and the revision petitioner (husband) who was a travelling railway ticket examiner was residing with her at Mysore whenever he was off duty. It is wrong to treat the word 'resided' as equivalent to something in the nature of having a domicile in a particular place or one's place of origin or where one's family lives. But 'resided' means to live or have dwelling place or abode. Where there is something more than a flying visit and where the man leaves his house and resides for some time in the house of his parents-in-law with his wife that is sufficient residence within the meaning of Sub-section (8) of Section 488 Cr.P.C. Sub-section (8) does not necessarily refer to permanent residence. It refers also to temporary residence. It suggests a certain continuity and if there be continuity for such a period of time as to allow it fairly to be said that the husband did reside with his wife for some period, the' section should not be strictly construed to deprive the woman who often in such cases is helpless of assistance from court. It is not possible to fix any arbitrary period of time. Each case must however be dealt with on its own merits. The distinction between mere visit and residence must be borne in mind. In the proved circumstances of this case I do not find any difficulty in holding that the court below was right in its view that the respondent (husband) was residing at Mysore for purposes of Sub-section (8) of Section 488 Cr.P.C. and that the lower court had Jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

6. In the result, this revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //