V.B. Raju, J.
1. In this revision application what is challenged is an order passed by the Chief City Magistrate, Ahmedabad, cancelling an order for maintenance to be paid to opponent (Applicant ?) No. i Chandrika with effect from the date of her attaining majority. The order also suspended the payment of maintenance to one Rajnikant, the son of opponent No. i on the ground that he was a child staying with his father, opponent No. 1.
2. Regarding Chandrika, the daughter of opponent No. 1, the learned Magistrate held that as she attained majority, the order for payment of maintenance should cease on her attaining majority. The learned Magistrate did not follow the ruling in Shaikh Ahmed v. Bai Fatma, ILR (1943) Bom 38 : AIR 1943 Bom 48. It is true that in Section 488, Cri. Pro. Code, the word 'child' is used, but' 'the word 'child' is not defined as a minor. As observed in State v. Ishwarlal, AIR 1950 Nag 231, a child must be unable to maintain, itself. The age of the child is not very material except that if the child is major, there would ordinarily be a presumption that the child is able to maintain itself. With great respect, I agree with these observations in AIR 1950 Nag 231.
3. In the present case, Chandrika has not deposed in her evidence that she is not able to maintain herself. In fact, she is major. She was born in 1942. and she must be now about 20 years of age. The learned Magistrate was, therefore, right in cancelling the order of maintenance with effect from the date of her attaining majority.
4. Regarding the boy, who is the son of opponent No. 1, as he is staying with his father, the learned Magistrate was right in suspending the payment of maintenance to him so long as he resides with the father.
5. The revision application is, therefore, dismissed.