Skip to content


Kembu Ammal Vs. J. Ranganatham - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in76Ind.Cas.30
AppellantKembu Ammal
RespondentJ. Ranganatham
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898),section 488 - petition for maintenance--offer to maintain children at time of trial--petition, justification for rejection of--children not looked after by father--maintenance to be awarded. - - 2. in these circumstances, i consider that maintenance should have been given to the children as well......be supported. what entitles the children to get maintenance is not merely a formal refusal of the children's father to maintain but also his neglect to do so. that gives the magistrate jurisdiction under section 488 of the criminal procedure code to give maintenance to the children. a mere offer to maintain the children at the time of trial is not a justification to reject the petition of the children. in this case the father took no steps to see that his son was looked after when the head of the boarding house, where he was, reported that he could not be looked after any longer in that institution. it was the mother who received the son and looked after him. the girl has always been with the mother ever since the father and mother ceased to live together. the father has taken no steps.....
Judgment:

Kishnan, J.

1. I think the order of the Magistrate regarding the children cannot be supported. What entitles the children to get maintenance is not merely a formal refusal of the children's father to maintain but also his neglect to do so. That gives the Magistrate jurisdiction under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code to give maintenance to the children. A mere offer to maintain the children at the time of trial is not a justification to reject the petition of the children. In this case the father took no steps to see that his son was looked after when the head of the boarding house, where he was, reported that he could not be looked after any longer in that institution. It was the mother who received the son and looked after him. The girl has always been with the mother ever since the father and mother ceased to live together. The father has taken no steps up to this date to get the children into his custody and looked after them himself.

2. In these circumstances, I consider that maintenance should have been given to the children as well. I vary the order of the Magistrate on this point and direct that the counter-petitioner do give maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10 (ten) for the boy and Rs. 7 (seven.) for the girl; this order will have effect from the date of application. Parties will bear costs both here and in the lower Court.


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