DAVID SASSOON Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant in this case was one Mrs. David Bassoon who presented an application under Section 488, Cr. P.C., for maintenance for herself and her four sons against the respondent David Sassoon, her husband and the father of the children. The defence to the application, as set out in the respondent's statement, was, that the complainant was misbehaving herself with a certain person, and had gone to Calcutta without his permission. With regard to the maintenance of the four sons, the respondent said that he was willing to. have the children with him.

(2.) On the facts the Magistrate came to the conclusion without any hesitation that the defence was not proved in any of its material particulars. Consequently the charge of misconduct was proved to be false. The Magistral further considered that the complainant had satisfied him that the respondent having sufficient means was neglecting to maintain his wife and his four sons who were unable to maintain themselves. The ages of the children varied from seven to eleven. The Magistrate then considered the contention of the respondent that he was willing to keep the children with himself, and, therefore, no order under Section 488 could be made against him. He said: The point is not free from difficulty. It is not covered by any Bombay authority, so far as I know. There are conflicting rulings of the Punjab Court, supporting respondent's contention, on the one hand viz., Man Singh V/s. Dharmon 18 P.R. 1894 Cr and Sardar Muhammad V/s. Nur Muhammad 41 Ind. Cas. 331 : 22 P.R. 1917 Cr. : 16 P.W.R. 1917 Cr. : 18 Cr.L.J. 811J and the decisions of the Burma Court, supporting the complainant on the other hand Murgesar Mudaliar V/s. Sodiamma 30 Ind. Cas. 480 : 16 Cr.L.J. 656 : 8 Bur.L.T. 134. Considering the object underlying Section 488, Cr. P.C., I prefer to follow Burma rulings rather than Punjab ones. Otherwise in those cases where children are very young, as in this case, a man knowing full well that no mother would part with such children, has simply to make an ostensible offer to keep the children with him and he can thus defeat the object of Section 488, which is to secure provision for helpless children.

(3.) The Magistrate then made an order that the respondent should pay in the aggregate its. 90 a month to the complainant for the maintenance of herself and the children.