PARAPPATI CHINNA ALIAS THILLU AMMA Vs. TPKSHANKUNNI MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner and respondent in this case are both Nairs following Maruma- katayam Law, and the four children in respect of whom petitioner claims mainteiance are the offspring of a Sambandam between them. The Sab Divisional Magistrate, finding that petitioner s Tavazhi, from which the childran admittedly had a right to maintenance, was able to maintain them, has dismissed the petition relying on the ruling in Chantan v. Chakkapayyan Mathu 32 Ind. Cas. 141 : 39 M. 957 : 19 M.L.T. 23 : (1916) 1 M.W.N. 111 : 17 Cr. L.J. 16.

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

(3.) It seems to ma 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 Marumakatayam system is open to the peculiar objection 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.