OF REFERENCE ' Application of the respondent under section 488, Cr. P. C. For maintenance allowance was accepted by Miss Suraya Azeem, a local Magistrate 1st Class vide his order dated 5th June, 1965 fixing the above allowance at Rs, 20 per mensum the fact of this case are as follows:- ' Allah Rakha married Mst. Aimna Bibi at Lahore on 23rd August, 19 Mst. Kausar Perveen who was about five years at the time of the institution of the proceedings under section 488, Cr. P. C. Before the learned Magistrate was borne of this coverture. The spouces arc living separate. They are pitched in severe litigation. Kausar Perveen respondent is living with her mother at Lahore. Rs, 50 were demanded as monthly maintenance allowance for the child Allah Rakha resisted the proceedings. He also offered to maintain the chiled as well as her mother at his house. The learned Magistrate accepted the application fixing the monthly maintenance allowance for the child at Rs, 20 per mensum. The learned Magistrate omitted to take notice of the offer of Allah Rakha to mainain the child at his house. Allah Rakha has moved for revision of the above order. The proceedings are forwarded for revision on the following ground.
' The impugned order is not open to question on merit. The omission on the part of the learned Magistrate to consider the above offer of the petitioner also does not detract from legality of the order. The child is very young. It is in her interest that she should remain with the mother. The said offer cannot relieve the petitioner of his liability to maintain the child who was living with the mother. The petitioner can enforce his claim for restoration of the child to his custody if he feels so advised. The quantum of maintenance allowance fixed by the learned Magistrate also cannot be groused on any valid ground.
2. From the material on the record competency of Criminal Courts at Lahore for the proceedings appear to be somewhat doubtful. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the petitioner had ever lived at Lahore. He is permanently residing. At Lyallpur. The mere fact that he married the mother of the child at Lahore cannot invest the Criminal Courts at Lahore with jurisdiction for the proceedings leading to the revision petition. Further evidence is required so determine competency of the Criminal Courts at Lahore for these proceedings. The case is recommended to the Hon'ble High Court for a direction to the learned Magistrate to hold an enquiry whether the Courts at Lahore were competent for these proceedings. The impugned order shall remain intact if the learned Magistrate holds that the application moved on behalf of the petitioner was cognizable by the criminal Courts at Lahore or the order will have to be re-called for want of jurisdiction in the learned Magistrate for the proceedings. Necessary order respectfully solicited. ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT ' ABDUL JABBAR KHAN, J.-Reference under section 438, Cr. P. C. Was submitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, on 1st February, 1966, to this Court to quash the order of the learned Magistrate under section 488, Cr. P. C. For want of jurisdiction.
2. I have gone through the forwarding note submitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to this Court and find that it is based on valid grounds. The record of the case clearly shows that the petitioner never lived at Lahore and in fact was a permanent resident of Lyallpur. The mere fact that the mother of the child was married to him at Lahore cannot bestow jurisdiction on the criminal Courts at Lahore to attend to the proceedings under this section. Moreover, the petitioner has appeared before me and has submitted that since long he has compromised with his wife and is living peacefully since then. The reference is accepted and the order of the learned Magistrate is set aside.