Skip to content


Anjayya and ors. Vs. Parutal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1952CriLJ577
AppellantAnjayya and ors.
RespondentParutal
Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act (59 of 1988)section 149 (2): [v. gopala gowda & jawad rahim, jj] insurers entitlement to defend the action joint appeal by insured and insurer - held, the language employed in enacting sub-section (2) of section 149 appears to be plain and simple and there is no ambiguity in it. it shows that when an insurer is impleaded and has been given notice of the case, it is entitled to defend the action only on grounds enumerated in sub-section (2) of section 149 of the act, and no other grounds are available to it. the insurer is not allowed to contest the claim of the injured or heirs of the deceased on other grounds, which are available to the insured. if insurer is permitted to contest the claim on other grounds it would mean adding more grounds of contest to the insurer..........father's case is that subsequent to the order of maintenance passed against him in favour of the minor children, he had entered into a compromise with the mother of the minors, acting on their behalf by delivering to them a bull in full settlement of the claim for their future maintenance. on behalf of the minors it is contended that such a compromise is not binding on the minor children. it is admitted by the parties that the bull died some time ago and that its value is somewhere between rs. 100/- to 150/-.3. proceedings under section 488 of the criminal procedure code are not in the nature of criminal proceedings. they are really civil proceedings but dealt with summarily in a criminal court for purpose of speedy disposal on grounds of convenience and social order. where paternity.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Suryanarayana Rao, J.

1. The question for decision in this case is whether the natural mother of the minor illegitimate children could settle out of Court the claim of the minors against their putative father for maintenance ordered by the Court to be paid monthly under Section 411 of the Hyderabad Criminal Procedure Code corresponding to Section 488 of the Indian Code.

2. The putative father's case is that subsequent to the order of maintenance passed against him in favour of the minor children, he had entered into a compromise with the mother of the minors, acting on their behalf by delivering to them a bull in full settlement of the claim for their future maintenance. On behalf of the minors it is contended that such a compromise is not binding on the minor children. It is admitted by the parties that the bull died some time ago and that its value is somewhere between Rs. 100/- to 150/-.

3. Proceedings under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code are not in the nature of criminal proceedings. They are really civil proceedings but dealt with summarily in a criminal Court for purpose of speedy disposal on grounds of convenience and social order. Where paternity is admitted by the putative father or held proved by a Court, the putative father is in law the natural guardian of this illegitimate child in preference to the mother. He thus stands in a fiduciary position in respect of his minor child as the father and natural guardian though in several other respects the illegitimate children do not stand on a par with legitimate children. It cannot, therefore, be seriously contended on behalf of the putative father that a compromise with the natural mother of the children is ipso facto binding on the minor children. It is the duty of the criminal Court to see, as does a civil Court whether the compromise is really beneficial and advantageous to the minors and more so when the claim is for their maintenance. In this particular case, considering the age of the minors who are said to be not more than 10 years old, I am not prepared to hold that the giving of a bull can be held sufficient to meet the maintenance of the children for the future until they become fit enough to earn for themselves or until they attain majority. I, therefore, hold that the compromise is not binding on the minors.

4. On behalf of the putative father reliance is placed on a ruling reported in Rangamma v. Mohommed Ali 10 Mad 18. But it does not appear that the specific plea that the compromise was not binding on the minors was raised before the learned Judge. Only the fact of compromise appears to have been disputed. That seems to be the reason why the learned Judge has not given any reasons for the view implied in the judgment that the compromise was binding on the minor children. In the circumstances I regret to express my inability to accept that judgment as an authority for the proposition that a compromise on behalf of the minor children is binding on them irrespective of the reasonableness or otherwise of the compromise.

5. In the result I hold the compromise la not binding on the minors but inasmuch as the bull was given towards their maintenance the value thereof namely Rs. 150/- should be deducted from the amount now claimed.

6. The present application is under the corresponding section of the Hyderabad Criminal Procedure Code which unlike the provision in the Indian section does not prescribe the limit that arrears for over a year shall not be granted.

7. The revision petition is allowed and I direct execution to issue for the amount of maintenance due upto date of issue of warrant less Rs. 150/- as the cost of the bull. The parties will bear their own costs in this Court.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //