A. Krishnasami Aiyar vs Chandravadana

Sankaran Nair, J.—An order was passed u/s 488 Criminal Procedure Code directing the petitioner to pay to each of his illegitimate

daughters maintenance at the rate of Rs. 7 (seven) a month. He now applies for an alteration of such allowance on account of a change in his and

their circumstances.

The Petitioner is a pleader and he alleges that his income has been considerably reduced of late. The Magistrate finds that his income might be

fluctuating but that there has not been such a change as would justify a reduction in the rate of maintenance awarded. In revision I cannot interfere

with that finding.

The eldest daughter is now said to be 17 years old, and it is urged that she is no longer a "" child unable to maintain itself"" u/s 488. The word

child"" has not been denned in the Criminal Procedure Code. In England it has got apparently various statutory definitions. But in the absence of

any definition or anything to the contrary in the Act I am of opinion that a ""child"" is a person who has not reached full age. It is only then that she

becomes competent to enter into any contract or enforce her claims; as this daughter has not attained the age of majority, i.e. 18, I think she is a

child"" within the section

Then it is urged that she is able to maintain herself. Her mother is a dancing girl and a prostitute. She and her sisters live with her. The Petitioner

has, the Magistrate finds, failed to prove his allegation that his daughter already follows that profession. But it is said that at that age they become

dancing girls and follow that life. But the law will not treat prostitution as a profession by which a girl might earn her livelihood and "" maintain itself

u/s 488 Cr. P.C. It is against public policy to do so.

It is also said that this woman might earn a livelihood by honest labor. It is not alleged that she belongs to the laboring class. She has not been

married nor has the petitioner made any attempts to get her married. There is no evidence to show that any employment was or is open to her.

For these reasons I must hold that no such change of circumstances has been proved as would entitle the petitioner to any modification of the

order.

The Petition is therefore dismissed.