- (1.)DESPITE repeated calls, no one appears for the respondents, this petition accordingly is being decided in the absence of respondents.
(2.)THE petitioner and respondent No. 1 are husband and wife. Respondent No. 2 is the minor daughter of the petitioner. Respondent initiated proceedings against the petitioner under section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the court of Munsiff Judicial Magistrate, Tral. Vide his final order dated 1st. June 1990, the Munsiff Judicial Magistrate, Tral has allowed the petition of the respondents under section 488 of Cr. P.C. and awarded monthly maintenance allowance @400/ - in favour of each of the respondents payable to them by the petitioner. This is note -worthy that this order was passed exparte against the petitioner.
(3.)MR . P.S. Sodhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the court of Munsiff Judicial Magistrate, Tral had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition u/s 488Cr.P.C.and,therefore, the order passed by him is not in accordance with the law and suffers from vice of patent lack of jurisdiction. Over and above the question of jurisdiction, according to the learned counsel, the impugned order is also against the facts of the case and is not based on true and proper appreciation of evidence. This apart, the maximum amount that could be granted by the court below in favour of the respondents as maintenance allowance was Rs.500/ - but the Magistrate has exceeded his jurisdiction by awarding the maintenance of Rs.800/ - against the petitioner, at the rate of Rs.400/ - per month for each of the two respondents.
I am satisfied that he contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are correct. Sub -section (8), of Section 488 Cr. P.C. reads as under: - "(8) Proceedings under this section may be taken against any person in any district where he resides or is, or where he last resides with his wife, or, as the case may be, the mother of the illegitimate child."