W L FARIA Vs. ANITA MERLENE FARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Rule the petnr. has challenged an order passed by the Chief Presidency Mag. of Calcutta under Section 488, Criminal P. C. directing the petnr. to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50 per month to his daughter Anita Merlene Faria. The petnr. is the husband, opposite party no. 2 Mrs. Mevis Faria is the wife, & opposite party No. 1 Anita Merlene Faria is the daughter. The appln. under Section 488, Criminal P. C. was made by opposite party no. 2 on behalf of heraelf & the daugther Anita Merlene Faria. The Chief Presidency Mag. dismissed, the appln. so far as the wife was concerned on the finding that she had separated from her husband by mutual consent & had agreed not to claim any maintenance from him. The appln. made by the wife on behalf of the daughter was allowed & upon his finding that the petnr.'s income was roughly Rs. 200 per month, the learned Mag. on a consideration of all the circumstances, fixed the amount of maintenance at Rs. 50 per month.

(2.) Three main points have been urged by Mr. Talukdar the learned counsel for the petnr. in support of this Rule. The first is that the appln. on 'behalf of the daughter by the mother is not maintainable in law. Nothing has been shown to us in support of this proposition contended for by Mr. Talukdar. We find that neither on authority nor on principle nor on any provision of the Criminal P. C. or any statute whatsoever, can this proposition be maintained that an appln. under Section 488, Criminal P. C. cannot be made by the mother on behalf of the daughter. We accordingly reject this contention advanced by Mr. Talukdar.

(3.) The second point urged by Mr. Talukdar involves an interpretation of the word 'child' in Section 488, Criminal P. C. Mr. Talukdar contends that on the finding of the learned Mag., the daughter Anita is aged above 18 years. In such circumstances, Mr. Talukdar argues, she cannot satisfy the definition of a child within the meaning of Section 488, Criminal P. C. Dealing with this point the learned Chief Presidency Mag. has observed in his judgment as follows :