This revision proceeding, which I am segregating with regard to its facts for the time being, also primarily involves a point of law, upon which there has been a marked divergence of opinion, as between the various High Courts in India. The point of law may be expressed in the following form: Do the words “ if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain......his legitimate or illegitimate child unable to maintain itself” occurring in section 488 (1), Criminal Procedure Code, imply that the word ‘child’ means, in that context, a person of tender years, a person of less than maturity, or (alternatively) a person who is the issue of that parent, without reference to age?

This matter, of course, has arisen for consideration upon several occasions in this Court, and has been subject of the decisions of various High Courts in India, I had occasion to consider the true interpretation in Ibrahim v. Saidani Bi1, where I have referred to the judgments of (1) Panchapakesa Ayyar, J., in Subbamma v. Venkata Reddi2, (2) Lakshmana Rao, J., in Kanniah v. Rajammal3, (3) a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Ranehoddas Narottamdass v. Emperor4, Hemanta Kumar Baner