G. S. N. TRIPATHI, J. This revision is being finally disposed of. 2. The question for determination in this revision is as to whether Criminal Court at Kanpur Dehat had jurisdiction to try this case or not. 3. It is not disputed that the revisionist Smt. Savitri Devi was married to Kamlesh Verma, respondent No. 2 in the year 1978. Again it is alleged that she was turned out of her husbands house and she has been living at the house of her father situate in the district of Kanpur Dehat. The present complaint was filed in Kanpur Dehat. 4. It has been mentioned in Section 182 (2), Cr. C. P. as duly amended, that any offence punishable under Section 494 or 495, IPC may be enquired into. . . . . . . or the wife by the first marriage has taken up permanent residence after the commis sion of the offence. In this case, it is not disputed that the wife is residing with her father at Kanpur Dehat. Therefore, the Court at Kanpur Denat had jurisdiction to try this case. 5. Perhaps, this legal position was not brought into the notice of the learned trial court and he technically rejected the com plaint on the ground of want of jurisdic tion. 6. The order impugned, is not proper at all because it has overlooked the legal statutory and mandatory provisions of law. 7. The revision is allowed according ly. The order impugned 2-5-96 passed by the learned trial court, is set aside. The matter is sent back to the court concerned at Kanpur Dehat to proceed in accordance with law. The parties are directed to present themselves before that court on 19-5-1998. Revision allowed. .