EMPEROR Vs. RANCHHODDAS NAROTTAMDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case raises an interesting question about the liability of the father under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code to maintain his married daughter. The applicant before us had been ordered on March 11, 1943, by the Magistrate to pay maintenance to his wife and four children at the rate of Rs. 40 per month, that is Rs. 16 to his wife, the opponent before us, and Rs. 6 to each of his four children. The opponent applied to the Presidency Magistrate, 7th Court,. Dadar, Bombay, for the enhancement of the amount of maintenance for herself and her children, in view of the fact that the applicant's salary is now increased. The opponent also made an application praying that the amount ordered to be paid in 1948 be reduced as the eldest daughter is now married. The learned Magistrate rejected the application of the opponent and enhanced the amount of maintenance in respect of the opponent and her three children. He, however, refused to enhance the amount of maintenance in respect of the married daughter, who is now said to be 15 years old. The applicant comes in revision against the said order.

(2.) Miss Navalkar, the learned advocate for the applicant, contends that under Hindu law the moment a daughter is married she gets an enforceable right to be maintained by the husband and she cannot therefore be described as unable to maintain herself within the meaning of Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, and the father ceases to be liable to maintain his married daughter. In support of her contention she relies upon a ruling of the Madras High Court in Chantan V/s. Mathu (1995) I.L.R. 39 Mad. 957, where it has been held that a child that possesses a right to maintenance from its mother's tavazhi is not entitled under Section 488 to an order for maintenance. In dealing with this point, Abdur Rahim J. observes (p. 958): the ability contemplated by the section applies as much to the case of a child which. has, got means of its own or which is entitled in law to be maintained, and is being maintained...by some other person as to a child which is able to earn a living by its own exertions.

(3.) Alying J. concurs with this view. He observes (p. 958): I think that a child which possesses a legally enforceable right to maintenance from its mother's tarwad stands in the same position as a child which possesses property in its own right, and that neither can be regarded as unable to maintain itself within the meaning of section 488.