AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Krishnan, J.—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 u/s 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.
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.