Syed Qamar Hasan, J.
1. This is an application to revise the order of the Magistrate, Karimnagar, dated 23-11-1955 by which he disallowed the application of the petitioner under Section 489 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced before us a few facts need be mentioned. The petitioner is the adopted son of the respondent. The respondent applied for maintenance under Section 411 of the Hyderabad Criminal Procedure Code. Her petition was granted and she. was awarded an allowance of Rs. 15/- per mensem.
After the order was made, it appears, the petitioner filed an application for reduction in the maintenance amount on the ground that his income had decreased and therefore he was not in a position to pay Rs. 15/- per month. This application was disallowed on 24-2-1954, Against that order, the petitioner went in revision to the District Court, which was disallowed op 20-5-1954.
The application out of which this revision arises was filed on 13-4-1955 again asking for reduction of the allowance on the ground that the prices of the commodities have gone down. The learned Magistrate disallowed the application on the ground that as the petitioner was not prepared to pay more maintenance when the prices have gone up he cannot now claim any reduction in the maintenance allowance. It is against this order the petitioner has come up in revision.
3. I quite agree with the learned advocate for the petitioner that the reasoning adopted by the learned Magistrate is not sound. That argument would have held good if the respondent had filed an application under Section 489. As no such application has been filed, the petitioner cannot be blamed for not being prepared to pay enhanced maintenance allowance. But all the same I do not see any reason to interfere with the order under revision because at the present moment the prices have again gone up.
4. It was then contended by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the order under which the maintenance is claimed has become inoperative in view of the application of the Indian Criminal Procedure Code to the then State of Hyderabad.
He elaborated his argument by referring to Clause (2) of Section 25 of Act I of 1951 and urged that as under Section 488 no provision has been made for the maintenance of the adoptive mother, it would be deemed that the original order has lapsed. I do not agree with that contention. The said Sub-section inter alia states that all orders passed under any corresponding law thereby repealed shall be deemed to have been respectively made under the corresponding provision of the Indian Criminal Procedure Code.
If the original order in favour of the respondent is to be deemed to have been passed under Section 488 of the Indian Criminal Procedure Code then it would follow that the order passed for the maintenance of the adoptive mother will continue to be in force unless and until set aside by some proper proceeding.
5. The learned advocate contends that the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 25 must be construed to enact that the provisions of both the repeal and the repealing Act must be in pari materia in all respects. If this contention is acceded to it would amount to adding something which is not to be found in the section itself. Therefore, this contention also is overruled.
6. Thirdly, it has been contended that the order itself was void on the ground that Section 411 of the Hyderabad Criminal Procedure Code did not provide for maintenance of adoptive mother. It is quite true that no specific mention was made in the old section regarding adoptive mother but the word used is 'parents' and in my view that expression includes also adoptive mother. Unfortunately no authority is cited in support of this contention.
7. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed.