PARRAPPATH CHINNA ALIAS THILLU AMMA Vs. TPKSANKUNNI MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner and respondent in this case are both Nairs following Marumakkathayam law; and the four children in respect of whom petitioner claims maintenance are the offspring of a sambhandham between them. The Sub- Divisional Magistrate, finding that petitioner s tavazhi, from which the children admittedly had a right to maintenance, was able to maintain them has dismisssed the petition, relying on the ruling in Chantan v. Mathu (1915) I.L.R. 39 Mad. 957.

(2.) I was a party to that decision, and after hearing the matter re-argued, see no reason to change my mind.

(3.) It seems to me that the object of including the maintenance sections (Chapter XXXVI) in the Criminal Procedure Code can only have been the prevention of destitution on public grounds; and that it should only be applied in cases where, in the absence of these provisions or the more cumbrous process of civil law, the wife or children would be destitute. Its unrestricted application to a society governed by a system of law like the Marumakkathayam is open to the peculiar objections and danger that it runs counter to the central ideas underlying the matriarchal system and should, in my opinion, only be allowed to the extent absolutely necessary to secure the object at which it is aimed.