NANAK CHAND BENARSI DAS Vs. CHANDER KISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two criminal revisions viz.. Criminal Revision No. 339-D of 1965 and Criminal Revision No. 185-D of 1966 have arisen out of a reference made by an Additional Sessions Judge recommending that the monthly maintenance under Section 488 of Criminal Procedure Code allowed by the trial Magistrate to Chander Kishore and other who are petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 339-D of 1965 be enhanced while the revision petition filed by their father Nanak Chand who is petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 185-D of 1966 and respondent in Criminal Revision No. 339-D of 1965, be dismissed. Both the petitions were heard together and were disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) The case originally came before J. S. Bedi J. of the Punjab High Court at Delhi but considering the importance of the questions of law involved in it and a marked divergence of judicial opinion on the question whether the word "child" in Section 488 (1) Criminal Procedure Code means a person of tender years or a person who has not attained the age of majority or is only intended to express the relationship of a person as the Immediate off-spring or progeny of the person from whom maintenance is claimed without relevance to age, the case was referred to a larger Bench and has after the constitution of this Court come up before us.

(3.) The broad facts are not in dispute. Petitioners Chandra Kishore, Ravindra Kishore and Rakesh Kumar are the sons of Nanak Chand and Shashi Prabha is his daughter. In September, 1963 they applied under S. 488 Criminal Procedure Code to a Magistrate for grant of a monthly maintenance of Rs. 500.00 against their father alleging that he was possessed of considerable property which brought him an income of Rs. 1200.00 per mensem and that he had refused or neglected to maintain them without any sufficient cause. They alleged that after the death of their mother in 1952 their father was living with one Smt. Bimla Devi who was not his legally wedded wife and had at her instigation, been ill-treating and neglecting to maintain them. The application was resisted by Nanak Chand who felt greatly hurt by the accusation implicit in his relationship with his wife Smt. Bimla Devi being described by the petitioners as adulterous. & He also denied that he had nBglected or refused to maintain the petitioners and contended that it was his wife Smt. Bimla Devi who had brought up all of them with great affection and care till in the month of May, 1963 they started living'with their two elder sisters who being well educated were according to him economically independent and had refused to marry boys of his choice. He asserted that all the four petitioners and their elder sister were still living in the same house with him. He admitted that he was displeased with the behaviour of his eldest son Chandra Kishore who was maintaining pen friendship with a girl in a foreign country and stated that he was also unhappy with one of his elder daughters who had started taking lessons in dancing. He, however, asserted that he was willing to maintain his minor children and therefore, denied the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to make an order under Section 488 Criminal Procedure Code and contended that in any case there was no such jurisdiction to award maintenance under that Section to Chander Kishore and Ravinder Kishore who were aged 23 and 22 years respectively and were able to maintain themselves.