ORDER E.K. Moidu, J. 1. This revision petition is against the order of the District Magistrate (Judicial) Kozhikode. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. She obtained an order for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 25/- per mensem against the respondent in M.C. 118/1961 at the court of the District Magistrate (Judicial) Kozhikode. That order was being executed by the petitioner from time to time till 5th June 1971. There were arrears for three months prior to 15th June 1971, and hence for the execution of the order the petitioner filed a petition before the District Magistrate, Kozhikode. The District Magistrate passed an order dated 14-6-1971 returning the petition to the petitioner stating that the respondent is a resident within the jurisdiction of the Manjeri court and hence the petition for execution shall be filed in that court. 2. The allegation in the petition is that the petitioner and respondent last resided within the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate's Court, Kozhikode. The District Magistrate did not notice that allegation in the petition. Evidently the petitioner before the order of maintenance was passed in her favour had lived with the respondent within the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate's Court, Kozhikode. Once it is alleged that she resided last with her husband within the jurisdiction of that court, the court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Sub-s.8 of S.488 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides:- "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" This sub-section has been considered in very many decisions. One of such decisions was reported in P. V. Isaac v Mrs. Sussan Isaac ( 1957 KLT 282 ). That decision explained the sub section and stated: "All that the sub-section requires is that the husband and the wife must have been residing at the sense in which the word "reside" is understood and that the same must have been their last joint residence prior to the initiation of the proceeding under S.488." The learned District Magistrate did not consider the effect of sub-s.8 of S.488, and he has returned the petition without jurisdiction. The order passed against the petitioner is illegal and without jurisdiction. It has therefore to be set aside. The order passed against the petitioner is illegal and without jurisdiction. It has therefore to be set aside. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The order dated 14-6-1971, is set aside. The District Magistrate will entertain the petition and dispose of the same in accordance with law.