Case Note & Summary
This appeal by certificate under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution arose from an application under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, filed by four children against their father, Nanak Chand, seeking maintenance. The children were Chandra Kishore (born 1942), Ravindra Kishore (born 1943), Shashi Prabha (born 1947), and Rakesh Kumar (born 1948). At the time of filing on September 4, 1963, the first two children were majors, the third was a minor but attained majority before the Magistrate's order, and the fourth was a minor. The Magistrate, 1st Class, Delhi, by order dated March 26, 1965, allowed the application and directed Nanak Chand to pay varying monthly sums to the children. On revision by both parties, the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the father's revision but allowed the children's revision, recommending enhancement of the maintenance to the High Court. The High Court accepted the reference and enhanced the amounts, granting a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court. The father, Nanak Chand, raised three contentions before the Supreme Court: first, that Section 488 Cr.P.C. stood impliedly repealed by Section 4 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, insofar as it applied to Hindus; second, that the word 'child' in Section 488 meant only a minor; and third, that the maintenance fixed for the two major children was based on wrong principles and excessive, as educational expenses were impermissibly taken into account. The Supreme Court, after examining the scope of both statutes, held that there was no inconsistency between the Maintenance Act and Section 488 Cr.P.C. The Maintenance Act codified the personal law of Hindus, while Section 488 provided a summary remedy applicable to all persons irrespective of religion. Hence, Section 4(b) of the Maintenance Act did not impliedly repeal Section 488. On the interpretation of 'child', the Court approved the view that the word, when used in reference to parentage, denoted a descendant of the first degree without reference to age. The only limitation provided in the section was inability to maintain oneself. Importing the concept of majority would exclude imbecile or handicapped major children from the protective scope of the provision, which was not intended. The Court further observed that while it was unnecessary to decide generally whether educational expenses could be awarded under Section 488, in the present case, the courts below were justified in considering that the two major children were college students at the time of the order. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the High Court's order was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Scope of Section 488 - The word 'child' includes major children unable to maintain themselves, not confined to minors - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 488 - The issue was whether 'child' in s. 488 means only minors. The Court held that the word is used with reference to father and has no age qualification; the only qualification is that the child must be unable to maintain itself. Importing the concept of majority would exclude imbecile or handicapped major children from protection, which is not intended. (Paras pp. 568-569) B) Statutory Interpretation - Implied Repeal - Section 4(b) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 does not repeal or affect Section 488 Cr.P.C. as both can stand together; the two laws have different scopes - Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, Section 4(b); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 488 - The appellant contended that s. 488 was impliedly repealed by the Maintenance Act insofar as it applies to Hindus. The Court held there is no inconsistency because the Maintenance Act codifies personal law while s. 488 provides a summary remedy for all persons regardless of religion. (Paras p. 568) C) Maintenance - Educational Expenses - While not deciding generally, the Court held that in the present case, the lower courts were right in considering that two major children were college students when fixing maintenance; educational expenses may be taken into account under s. 488 in appropriate cases - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 488 - The appellant argued that maintenance for the major children was based on wrong principles and excessive because education expenses were considered. The Court found no error as the situation at the time of the order (i.e., being college students) justified it. (Paras pp. 570-571)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the expression 'child' in s. 488 Cr.P.C. includes only minor children; Whether s. 488 Cr.P.C. is impliedly repealed by s. 4 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 insofar as it applies to Hindus; Whether educational expenses to be taken into account for determining quantum of maintenance.
Final Decision
The appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order, holding that Section 488 Cr.P.C. was not impliedly repealed, that 'child' includes major children unable to maintain themselves, and that the maintenance orders for the major children were not based on wrong principles.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Section 488 of Cr.P.C. provides a summary remedy applicable to all persons irrespective of religion
- 'Child' in s. 488 Cr.P.C. includes major children if unable to maintain themselves
- The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act
- 1956 does not impliedly repeal s. 488 Cr.P.C.
- Educational expenses can be considered for maintenance under s. 488 Cr.P.C.
