SARASWATI Vs. MADHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question raised in this petition is whether the word child under S.488, Crl. P. C., can apply to a person who has already attained the age of majority. The learned First Class Magistrate, Ernakulam disallowed the claim for maintenance to the petitioner who is aged 22 years. According to the petitioners learned counsel the word child is not confined to minors, but the word is synonymous with sons or daughters of whatever age and that so long as that person was unable to maintain himself or herself, he or she would be entitled to maintenance. It was pointed out that the reference to age has been purposely omitted in the section.

(2.) The decisions are not uniform. In W.L. Faria v. Anita Merlene Faria [ AIR 1951 Cal. 66 ] it was held that:

(3.) But in an earlier Calcutta Case in Hemanta Kumar Banerjee v. Manorama Debi ( AIR 1935 Cal. 488 ) it was observed: