Order: This reference has been made by the Sessions Judge, Trichur, recommending quashing of the order awarding maintenance to the second petitioner in M. C. No. 50 of 1972 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kunnamkulam on the ground that the order is illegal, as she being a major will not come within the meaning of the word “child” in clause 1 of section 488 of the Code of Criminal procedure.

2. The circumstances under which this reference happened to be made can be shorty stated: The revision petitioner in Crl.R.P. No 14 of 1973 before the Sessions Court, Trichur, is the counter petitioner and the respondents in the revision petition are the petitioners in M. C. No. 50 of 1972 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kunnamkulam. This was an application filed under section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, claiming maintenance on the allegations that the revision petitioner marred the first respondent in 1950 in accordance with the religious rites and respondents 2 to 4 were born to them during this wedlock and the revision petitioner neglected and failed to maintain the wife and children. The revision petitioner denied the marriage; but admitted the paternity of respondents 2 to 4. He then contended that he had filed an O. P. before the District Court, Trichur, for dissolution of the marriage between him and the first respondent and the same was pending and that he used to send money to the respondents.

3. On a consideration of the evidence the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate found that the first respondent is the legally wedded wife of the revision petitioner, that respondents 2 to 4 are his children, and that the revision petitioner neglected and failed to maintain them. The learned Magistrate also held that the second respondent though attained majority is admittedly a sick girl without any employment. On these findings, an order was passed awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs. 25 per month to the first respondent, Rs. 20 per month to the 2nd respondent and Rs. 15 each per month to respondents 3 and 4. It was against this order that Crl. R. P. No. 14 of 1973 was filed before the Sessions Court, Trichur.

4. The points raised before the Sessions Court in support of the revision petition were that the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate ough not to have allowed maintenance to the 1st respondent and also to the second respondent, who is now aged more than 18 years that the quantum of maintenance awarded was excessive and that the Court was not right in giving effect to the order from the date of the petition. The learned Sessions Judge on a consideration of the materials before him found that the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate awarding maintenance to the first respondent is neither illegal nor improper, that, under the law, the Magistrate has power to order payment of maintenance from the date of the petition and that there is no illegality or impropriety in the rate of maintenance awarded by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. But he found that section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for payment of maintenance only to wife and children, whether legitimate or illegitimate, that, “the second respondent has become a major and has ceased to come under the category of”child“mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore the order awarding maintenance to her is illegal. Accordingly, this reference was made to this Court.

5. When this reference came up for hearing neither the revision petitioner nor his advocate appeared before this Court.

6. The only point that arises for consideration under this reference is whether a major son or daughter unable to maintain himself or herself is entitled to claim maintenance under section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Subsection (1) of section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states that if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife or his legitimate or illegitim

Click Here to Read the rest of this document