AMIRTHAMMAL Vs. K MARIMUTHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision case arising out of a proceeding before the Additional First Class magistrate, Madurai, under S. 488 (1), Cri P. C. comes before us, as the matter has been referred to a Bench in few of the conflict of case law and marked divergence of opinion between various High Courts and even in decisions of the same High court on the question whether the word "child" in S. 488 (1), Cri P. C. in the context means a person of tender years or a person who has not attained the age of majority, that is, person under nonage or expresses only the relationship of a person as the immediate issue of a parent, without reference to age.

(2.) THE application which has given rise to the proceeding was filed by one amirthammal, the petitioner, herein, of Melapannagaram, Madurai, against her son Marimuthu claiming maintenance for two children of Marimuthu, a son named balakrishnan and a daughter Ramanujam, both of whom are living with her. It is seen from the order of Court below that the girl Ramanujam has a twin sister sitalakshmi who has been married away. In the petition it is alleged that the boy balakrishnan was aged 17, sickly and was not keeping good health and ramanujam was just 15 years old. The mother of those children died in 1947, and it is found that their father Marimuthu had married again in about 1959, and some time after that he had neglected those children. The learned Additional First Class magistrate No. 1, Madurai, before whom the matter came up, finds that there is sufficient evidence on the side of the respondent which was not seriously shaken in cross-examination to show that the boy Balakrishnan was capable of doing some work and that he was doing work and earning Rs. 2 to 3 per day. It is found future that he was born on 23-5-1944, and had completed 20 tears of age on the date of the application under S. 488 (1), Cri. P. C. As regards the girl, Ramanujam, the learned Magistrate is of the view that she was in all probability aged 18. In these circumstances, purporting to follow the latest decision of this Court in ibrahim v. Saidani Bi, 1964-2 Mad LJ 7, the learned Magistrate held that neither of the children was entitled to claim maintenance from their father.

(3.) THE relevant portion of S. 488 (1) runs as follows: