CHOLAMARAKKAR Vs. PATHUMMAMMA ALIAS PATHUMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vagrancy is the fruit of a sin and the sin is capital where the root is the parent. It is this painful thought that lingers in the background while analysing the facts of these cases.

(2.) One of the main questions arising for consideration is whether legitimate or illegitimate child who has attained majority is entitled to maintenance. There cannot be any dispute that the said question can be tackled only under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(3.) The provision in contradistinction to Section 125(1)(b) makes no difference as whether die child is minor or major, again because no person who is physically or mentally challenged or injured and thus unable to maintain himself or herself shall not suffer on account of the neglect or refusal on the part of the father. The only precondition under Section a married daughter, is unable to maintain himself or herself owing to any physical or mental abnormality or injury. There may not be much of a dispute or lack of clarity regarding physical or mental abnormality or physical injury is yet a grey exactly is the scope and ambit of mental injury is yet a grey area under law in the matter of entitlement for maintenance. For analyzing the above position, we have to refer to the facts.