Order.- The facts which give rise to this revision are these: The respondents herein filed a petition in the Court of the First Class Magistrate, Armoor. for the grant of maintenance under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, alleging that the respondent No. 1, who is the lawfully wedded wife of the petitioner was illtreated by the petitioner about seven months prior to the filing of the petition, at a time when the respondent No. 1 was pregnant, and was driven away from the house of the petitioner after taking all the gold ornaments belonging to her. Thereafter the respondent No. 2 was born to the respondent No. 1. The petitioner herein has not at all been maintaining both the respondents and, therefore, they prayed for the grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50 per month to the 1st respondent and Rs. 25 per month for the 2nd respondent.. It was also specifically stated in petition that the petitioner herein resides at Nizamabad proper and the respondents reside at Armoor, which is within the district of Nizamabad and, therefore, the First Class Magistrate, Armoor, had jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The petitioner appeared before the Court, filed his counter and contended that the First Class Magistrate, Armoor, had no jurisdiction to entertain that petition, as admittedly the petitioner herein was residing at Nizamabad, therefore, it was the First Class Magistrate at Nizamabad which was the proper Court. 2. The trial Court rejected the contention advanced by the petitioner on the ground that provisions of section 488 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure are very wide in their amplitude and covers any Court within the district in which the husband resides. A revision was preferred to the Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, who also confirmed the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court and held that the First Class Magistrate, Armoor, had jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Hence this revision. 3. Mr. Anjaneyulu appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein contends that the lower Courts were incorrect in their interpretation of section 488 (8), Criminal Procedure Code. It is true, as pointed out by the Supreme Court, that section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, prescribes alternative forums to enable a discarded wife or a helpless child, legitimate or illegitimate, to get urgent relief. Anjaneyulu appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein contends that the lower Courts were incorrect in their interpretation of section 488 (8), Criminal Procedure Code. It is true, as pointed out by the Supreme Court, that section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, prescribes alternative forums to enable a discarded wife or a helpless child, legitimate or illegitimate, to get urgent relief. Proceedings under the section can be taken against the husband or the father, as the case may be, in a place where he resides, premanently or temporarily, or where be last resided in any district in India or where he happened to be at the time the proceedings are initiated; but the learned Advocate contends that that does not mean any Court in a, district in which the husband resides or has jurisdiction to hear the petition under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. I am of the opinion that the contention advanced by the learned Advocate for the petitioner has some force. Section 488 (8;, Criminal Procedure Code, provides 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”. A close reading of the said sub-section would show that the Legislature intended that a discarded wife or a helpless child who has been discarded by the husband or the father, as the case may be, should get much needed and urgent relief and there should not be extra burden either on the wife or the child to file a petition only in a particular Court. Section 488 (8), Criminal Procedure Code, gives three alternative forums which could be chosen by the discarded wife or the helpless child. A close analysis of sub-section (8) of section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, would show that proceedings under this section could be taken either in the district where the husband resides or he ‘is’ in the district at the time of filing of the petition or where he last resided with his wife. Thus, the wife or the child could choose one of these three forums. The words “in any district” do not mean in any Court in any district where the husband resides and therefore, section 488 (8), Criminal Procedure Code, will have to be read in conjunction with section 12,. Thus, the wife or the child could choose one of these three forums. The words “in any district” do not mean in any Court in any district where the husband resides and therefore, section 488 (8), Criminal Procedure Code, will have to be read in conjunction with section 12,. Criminal Procedure Code. Section 12 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that the State Government may appoint as many persons as it thinks fit, besides, the District Magistrate, to be Magistrate of the first, second or third class in any district outside the presidency towns; and the State Government or the District Magistrate, subject to the control of the State Government may, from time to time, define local areas within which such persons may exercise all or any of the powers with which they may respectively be invested under this Code. Therefore, I am not in agreement with, the contention advanced by the learned advocate for the respondent that the words “in any district” appearing in sub-section (8) of section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, would mean any Court in any district. The learned advocate for the respondents relies upon a ruling of the Bombay High Court reported in Shantabai v. Vishnupant1. In the said ruling the Bombay High Court had held that the express use of the word “district” should not be given any meaning different from the normal connotation of that word and in view of the express use of the words “any district where he (husband) resides” it cannot be limited only to a Court within that district within whose jurisdiction the husband resides. In my opinion, it would be stretching the intention of the Legislature too far by importing the word ‘Court’ in sub-section (8) of section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, to read “any Court in any district”. ‘If the Legislature had intended that the application under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, could be filed in any Court in any district in which the husband resides it would have very clearly stated so; but, non-mention of the words “any Court in any district” would show that the Legislature intended that the application should be filed only in the Court in a district within whose jurisdiction the husband resides. I am supported in my view by a judgment of the Madras High Court reported in Sakuntala v. Thirumalayya1, and also by a decision of Justice A.D.V. Reddy, in Cr. I am supported in my view by a judgment of the Madras High Court reported in Sakuntala v. Thirumalayya1, and also by a decision of Justice A.D.V. Reddy, in Cr. R.C. No. 396 of 1969 disposed of on 23rd April, 1970. 4. I, therefore, allow this revision, set aside the orders of the lower Courts and hold that the judicial First Class Magistrate at Nizamabad is the proper Court in which the application under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, should be filed by the respondents. The application should be returned to the respondents to be filed in the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nizamabad.