CHANDRIKA CHINUBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision application what is challenged is an order passed by the Chief City Magistrate Ahmedabad canceling an order for maintenance to be paid to opponent No. 1 Chandrika with effect from the date of her attaining majority The order also suspended the payment of maintenance to one Rajnikant the son of opponent No. 1 on the ground that he was a child staying with his father opponent No. 1.

(2.) Regarding Chandrika the daughter of opponent No. 1 the learned Magistrate held that as she attained majority the order for payment of maintenance should cease on her attaining majority. The learned Magistrate did not follow the ruling in Shaikh Ahmad v. Bai Fatma I.L.R. (1943) Bom. 38. It is true that in sec. 488 Cri. Pro. Code the word child is used but the word child is not defined as a minor. As observed in State v. Ishwarlal A.I.R. 1950 Nag. 231 a child must be unable to maintain itself. The age of the child is not very material except that if the child is major there would ordinarily be a presumption that the child is able to maintain itself. With great respect I agree with these observations in A.I.R. 1951 Nagpur 231

(3.) In the present case Chandrika has not deposed in her evidence that she is not able to maintain herself. In fact. she is a major. She was born in 1942 and she must be now about 20 years of age. The learned Magistrate was therefore right in canceling the order of maintenance with effect from the date of her attaining majority.