EMPEROR Vs. DAVID SASSOON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant in this case was one Mrs. David Sassoon who presented an application under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, for maintenance for herself and her four sons against the respondent David Saasoon, 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 he false. The Magistrate 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 1 know There are conflicting. rulings of the Punjab Court, supporting respondent's contention, on the one hand (viz , P. R, No. 18 of 1894 and P, R, No. 2i of 1017) "rid the decisions of the Burma Court, supporting the complainant on the oilier hand (1(1 Crim L. J, 050). Considering the object underlying Section 4S8, Criminal Procedure (Code, I prefer to follow Burma rulings rather than Punjab ones. Otherwise in those cases whore 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 ho 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 Rs. 90 a month to the complainant for the maintenance of herself and the children.