JUDGMENT B.B. Misra, J. - This revision application is directed against an order passed by the Civil and Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad-Mainpuri, at Fatehgarh, upholding the order of the City Magistrate, Farrukhabad, who awarded maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 40/-per month to opposite party No. 1 under Section 488, Cr.P.C. 2. The applicant is the husband of opposite party No. 1, their marriage having taken place 6-7 years ago. Puttu Lal is the father of the applicant. Opposite party No. 1 Smt. Ganga Devi brought an application under Section 488 Cr.P.C. on the allegation that her husband's father had evil designs upon her and that on her refusal to yield to him he often beat her. She further alleged that her husband did not listen to her complaints about his father's behaviour, and that he had refused to maintain her though he and his father had sufficient means. It was further alleged in the application that one month before the filing of the application the applicant had resided with her in Farrukhabad for a fortnight. She claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 75/- per month, but the Magistrate allowed it only at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month. 3. The applicant denied the allegations made against his father. He further alleged that he called his wife several times to live with him, but she refused to do so. He pleaded that the amount of maintenance claimed was excessive. Lastly, he averred that the Farrukhabad court had no jurisdiction to try the case as he and his father were residents of district Mainpuri. 4. Both the lower courts repelled all the pleas raised by the applicant Ram Babu and awarded the maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month to opposite party No. 1. 5. The only point that was urged before me was in respect of jurisdiction. It cannot be doubted that the applicant is a permanent resident of district Mainpuri. His Mainpuri address was given by Smt. Ganga Devi herself in her application under Section 488 Cr.P.C. But on behalf of Smt. Ganga Devi it was alleged that Ram Babu had resided with her in Farrukhabad for a fortnight about a month prior to the filing of the application. His Mainpuri address was given by Smt. Ganga Devi herself in her application under Section 488 Cr.P.C. But on behalf of Smt. Ganga Devi it was alleged that Ram Babu had resided with her in Farrukhabad for a fortnight about a month prior to the filing of the application. On that basis both the lower courts held that the applicant Ram Babu resided at Farrukhabad within the meaning of Section 488(8) Cr.P.C. and, as such, the Farrukhabad courts had jurisdiction in the matter. Section 488(8) Cr.P.C. runs as follows: `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." 6. The above provision of law was interpreted and analysed threadbare by the Supreme Court in Mst. Jagir Kaur and another v. Jaswant Singh, 1963 AWR 543 SC. It was observed therein that a case under Section 488 Cr.P.C. could be filed at one of the three places, namely, (1) where the husband resides, (2) or where the husband is, and (3) or where he last resided with his wife. While dealing with the matter it was held that the meaning to be given to the words `where he last resided' should be the same as that of the word `resides' It was further held that the word `resides' included both the permanent residence and a temporary residence. While discussing the decisions of the various Courts of this country, the Supreme Court held that the ratio decidendi should be `animus men-andi or an intention to stay for a period, the length of the period depending upon the circumstances of each case'. A few illustrations were also given to elaborate that point. The sum and substance of the discussion is that even temporary residence could come within the expressions `resides' and `last resided' depending upon the circumstances of each case. 7. The facts of the present case may be examined in that perspective. In the present case the wife Smt. Ganga Devi stated that Ram Babu used to come eight to ten days, and on the last occasion he stayed with her for about a fortnight. That stay would not be covered by any of the illustrations given in the judgment of the Supreme Court. In the present case the wife Smt. Ganga Devi stated that Ram Babu used to come eight to ten days, and on the last occasion he stayed with her for about a fortnight. That stay would not be covered by any of the illustrations given in the judgment of the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the stay of the applicant could not be held to be more than a casual visit. Simply because the applicant went to Farrukhabad because of his wife being there and stayed with her for periods extending from a week to a fortnight, it could not be said that he had made Farrukhabad as his place of abode either permanent or temporary. His visits could not be called anything more than casual visits. As such, the Farrukhabad courts had no jurisdiction to try this case. 8. The revision application is allowed. The orders passed by both the courts below are set aside and the application under Section 488 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. The stay order dated September 6, 1967 is vacated.