P L D 1963 (W (PLP)

"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." Mr. Rahim relied upon Charan Das v. Mst. Surasti Bai (42 Cr. L J 105) in support of his contention that a casual visit to another place cannot confer jurisdiction under this sub‑section upon the Courts of that place.

5. Appearing on behalf of the opponent Mst. Bano, Syed Hamid Ali advocate contended that the applicant's residence has been at Karachi and that in the complaint filed by him against the six accused on 8‑7‑1961 as well as in the written statement filed by him on 4‑9‑1961 in the Court of Mrs. Pai he has admitted this position. Also in his statement recorded by Mr. Aftab Hussain, A. C. M., Karachi before dismissing his complaint on 26‑8‑1961 he has said that he resides at Gandhi Garden, Karachi. Syed Hamid Ali, Advocate relies upon the cases of Gangabai v. Pamanmal Lachman (40 Cr. L. J 117) and Srimati Indubala Devi v. Satchid Prosad (40 Cr. L J 598) respectively and also on the case of Jolly v. Jolly (18 Cr. L J 706).

6. I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned advocates. I am of opinion that it would lie ill in the mouth of the applicant for him to contend that he has not beets residing at Karachi so as to confer jurisdiction on the Court of and A. C. M. here in respect of the maintenance application. I am impressed by the facts that the applicant both in his private complaint filed in the Court of Mr. Aftab Hussain, A. C. M., Karachi and in his statement on oath to this Magistrate has admitted that he is a resident of Karachi. Moreover in his written statement filed in the Court of Mrs. Pai he has admitted the contents of paragraph 2 of the maintenance application which stated :‑ "that the applicant migrated with the opponent to Pakistan in 1950 and lived together in Gandhi Garden, Karachi." Mst. Bano has examined two witnesses Muhammad Khan P. W. 2 and Rahman P. W. 3 who also say that Ramzani is a resident of Karachi. I am, therefore, clearly of opinion that the present applicant Ramzani has been residing in Karachi.

7. The point for determination, however, is whether his stay in Karachi is sufficient for the purpose of complying with sub section (8) of section 488, Cr. P. C. In the case reported in 42 Criminal Law Journal at page 105 a Bench of the Lahore High Court composed of Young, ‑C. J. and Ram Lal, J. held that .‑ "the sole test on the question of residence is whether a party has animus manendi, or an intention to stay for an indefinite period, at one place ; and if he has such an intention, then alone can he be said to `reside' there." But, it seems to me, that this question of residence is ultimately a question of fact and one to be decided upon the facts of each case. This view was taken by a Bench of Davis, J. C. and Lobo, J. in the case of Gangabai v. Pamanmal. In this case their Lordships held that :‑ "each case, however, must be dealt with on its merits, the distinction between a mere visit and residence being borne in mind." and again‑ "where there is something more than a flying visit, where a man leaves his house and resides for some time in the house of his parents‑in‑law with his wife, that is a sufficient residence within the meaning of subsection (8) of section 488, Criminal Procedure Code." In the case of Mrs. Jolly v. Mr. Jolly a Bench of Calcutta High Court held in an application by Mrs. Jolly against her husband under section 488 Cr. P. C. that‑ "the residence of the husband in Calcutta from the 16th to the 23rd January when the application under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, was made, was sufficient to give the Presidency Magistrate's Court in Calcutta jurisdiction, having regard to subsection (8) of section 488, Criminal Procedure Code."

8. In view; therefore, of my findings on the facts of this case that the applicant Ramzani was residing in Karachi and that the Courts at Karachi have jurisdiction in respect of the application under section 488 Cr. P. C. filed by the opponent against the applicant and now pending in the Court of Mrs. Pai, A. C, M., Karachi, I see no force in these two applications i.e. the Transfer and the Revision Applications and they are, therefore, dismissed. K. B. A. Applications dismissed.