KUMARI KARUPPAYEE Vs. MOTHI MONDI AMBALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition filed by Kumari Karuppayee, directed against the order of dismissal of the petition praying for her maintenance. The learned Additional First-Class Magistrate I, Madurai, held on the strength of the order of his predecessor dated 30th September, 1966, that the petitioner had completed her eighteenth year, as she was born in about a year after the marriage of Mothi Mondi Ambalam, the respondent herein, with the mother of the petitioner on 31st March, 1947 and that hence she was not entitled to any maintenance. The learned Magistrate further stated that maintenance for the petitioner has been claimed before in the Madurai Court and that it has been disallowed. The order dated 2oth May, 1969 of the Court of the Additional First-Class Magistrate, Madurai, was really justified on the then prevailing state of law as decided in the ruling Amirthammal v. Marimuthu, 1967 AIR(Mad) 77. But the Supreme Court has overruled the said decision reported in Amirthammal v. Marimuthu, 1967 AIR(Mad) 77, by a later decision Manak Chand v. Chandra Kishore, 1970 CrLJ 522, wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that the word ' child' in Section 488 does not mean a minor son or daughter. The real limitation is contained in the expression "unable to maintain itself". The learned Judges of the Supreme Court further held that the word 'child' is not defined in the Criminal Procedure Code itself. This word has different meaning in different context. Where the word 'child' is used in conjunction with parentage, it is not concerned with age. In Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code the word is used with reference to the father. There is no qualification of age; the only qualification is that the child must be unable to maintain itself. There is no justification for saying that this section is confined to children who are under the age of majority. In view of the said ruling of the Supreme Court, the learned trial Magistrate was not justified in dismissing the petition for maintenance. He is bound to give opportunity to die parties to adduce evidence to prove as to how the petitioner is unable to maintain herself. Both the parties would be at liberty to adduce evidence in support of their contentions. The order of the Additional First-Glass Magistrate in Miscellaneous Case No. 36 of 1970 is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh enquiry.