1. I think the order of the Magistrate regarding the children cannot be supported. What entitles the children to ge6 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 look after them himself.
2. In these circumstances, I consider that the maintenance should have been given to the children as well. I vary the order of the Magistrate on this point and directs 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.