1. The foundation of this Rule is the allegation that the petitioner had no notice of the proceedings under s. 488, Criminal Procedure Code, that were held in the Court of the Magistrate who made the final order in 1927. As regards this matter it appears to us that the allegations which the petitioner has made in his application for revision to this Court are not correct. We are satisfied upoa a perusal of the two reports of the serving peon as well as on his evidence that was given in those proceedings that the notices in connection therewith were personally served upon the petitioner. If this fact, has been established as, in our opinion, it has been, then the only question is whether the Magistrate had jurisdiction to deal with these proceedings under the provisions of Sub-3. (8) of s. 488, Criminal Procedure Code.
2. That sub-section says 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 etc The proceedings undoubtedly were taken in the District of 21 Parganas. The petitioner at that time admittedly was residing in Careutta. But it is alleged on behalf of the opposite party that it was within the 2-1 Parganas that the petitioner had last resided with his wife. This allegation, however, is dented on behalf of the petitioner. It is not necessary for us to come to a definite finding on this question, because even if it be assumed that it has not been established that the petitioner had last resided prior to those proceedings with his wife within the jurisdiction of 21-Parganas, the final order which the Magistrate has made under s. 488, Criminal Procedure Code, would not be vitiated simply for that reason. In our opinion s. 531, Criminal Procedure Code, should apply to the case and the order which the learned Magistrate passed under s. 488, Criminal Procedure Code, would not be vitiated merely because the proceedings were held in a wrong District. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that s. 530(n), Criminal Procedure Code, would apply to the case and, therefore, the proceedings should be held to be void. We are unable to agree in this contention, because the Magistrate who dealt with these proceedings undoubtedly was empowered by law to deal with the application for maintenance under s. 488, Criminal Procedure Code.
3. In this view of the matter we are of opinion that there is no substance in this Rule and that it should be discharged.
4. Rule discharged.