There she gave birth to a daughter the second appellant.
The finding is a companycurrent finding of fact the companyrectness whereof cannot ordinarily be questioned in a revision petition in the High Court.
The Magistrate, on a companysideration of the entire evidence, having regard to the salary of the respondent, and the value of the property he purchased awarded maintenance to the wife at the rate of Rs.
The husband preferred a revision to the High Court of Punjab against that order.
The Additional Sessions judge, on a reconsideration of the evidence, accepted the finding of the learned Magistrate and companyfirmed the quantum of maintenance awarded by him.
The respondent preferred a revision against that order to the Additional Sessions judge, Ludhiana, and the learned Addi tional Sessions judge, agreed with the learned Magistrate both on the question of jurisdiction and also on the right to maintenance and dismissed the revision.
On the merits, he held that the first wife and her daughter were entitled to maintenance and awarded for the wife maintenance at the rate of Rs.
Thereafter, the first appellant was taken to her mother in laws house, and after living there for a few years she returned to her parental house.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 22, 1961, of the Punjab High Court, Chandigarh in Criminal Revision No.
As disputes arose between them, he sent her back to India, promising to send her money for her maintenance but did number lo so.
25,000/ .
100/ per month for herself and at the rate of Rs.
5 or 6 years thereafter, jaswant Singh came to India on 5 months leave and the companyple lived in jaswant Singhs or his mothers house at Hans Kalan it is number clear to whom the house belongs for a period of 5 months and thereafter jaswant Singh left for Africa.
On that view, it set aside the order of the learned Additional Sessions judge and dismissed the petition.
50/ per month.
When he was admittedly in India, the first appellant filed a petition under s. 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of the First Class Magistrate, Ludhiana, within whose jurisdiction the respondent was staying at that time.
When the respondent came to India and lived with his wife in his or in his mothers house in village Hans Kalan, he had a clear intention to temporarily reside with his wife in that place.
Jagir Kaur, the first wife of jaswant Singh, was married to him in 1.930.
Hence the present appeal.
Before going to Africa, jaswant Singh married another wife and took her with him to Africa.
In the year 1960, he came back to India.
After 5 or 6 years, he came back to India on leave and took the first appellant also to Africa.
The High Court disagreed with both the lower Courts on the question of jurisdiction.
The respondent filed a companynter affidavit denying the allegations and pleading that the said companyrt had numberon the ground that he never resided within its district number did he last reside with the first appellant in any place within its.jurisdiction.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The petition was filed by the first appellant on behalf of herself and also as lawful guardian of the second appellant, who was a minor, claiming maintenance at Rs.
The learned Magistrate held that the petitioner appellant was the wife of the respondent and that the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the husband and wife last resided together in the District of Ludhiana.
Tile said jaswant Singh was employed in the police force in Africa.
February 13.
143 of 1961.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by SUBBA RAO J. This appeal by special leave raises the question of true companystruction of s. 488 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
100/ per month and for the daughter at the rate of Rs.
50/ per month for the maintenance of her minor child.
It held that the husbands permanent home was Africa and his two visits to Ludhiana for temporary periods did number make him one who resided in that district or who last resided with his wife therein.
1448 of 1960.
Harnam Singh Chadha and Harbans Singh, for the respondent.
K. Kapur, for the appellants.
The Maklawa ceremony took place about 7 years after the marriage, when the respondent was away In Africa.
200/ per month for both of them on the ground that the respondent deserted them and did number maintain them.
