MOIDEENKUTTY Vs. PATHUMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The theory that inability to maintain itself is the only condition which entitles a major child to claim maintenance under S.125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, does not seem to be correct.

(2.) The respondents in this case, the wife and major son rely on a decision of this Court in Achuthan Nair v. Leelamma ( 1975 KLT 93 ) to contend for the proposition that the liability to maintain is in respect of a child irrespective of its age, the only condition being that it should be unable to maintain itself.

(3.) True in the decision in Achuthan Nair v. Leelamma (1975 KLT 93) this court had occasion to consider the scope and meaning of the expression 'Child'. Though there were conflicting judicial decisions on that point, the matter was set at rest by the decision of the Supreme Court in Nanak Chand v. Chandra Kishore ( AIR 1970 SC 446 ) where it was held that the child referred to in S 488 of the old code did not mean a minor son or daughter and that the only limitation was contained in the expression ''unable to maintain itself. S 125 of the new code however makes a slight departure, defines the expression "minor" and limits the condition under which a child who has attained majority can claim maintenance. S.125(1) reads thus:-