Order This is a revision against the order refusing maintenance to the two children who are the petitioners herein. On behalf of the children, the mother has filed the petition against the husband who is the respondent in this case. This is a case arising out of Marumakkathayam Law and under the law the husband is entitled to divorce a wife and the wife here has been divorced. But the fact that these two children have been born to the respondent is not disputed. The next question is whether he is entitled to maintain them under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. It is very vehemently contended by Mr. Raghavan for the Respondent that in Chantan v. Mathu1, it has been held that when the child was interested in the tarwad properties, it is entitled to be maintained from the tarwad properties and the child cannot be said to be unable to maintain itself. Mr. Eradi appearing for the petitioner is relying on a decision of Sadasiva Iyer, J., In re Parathy Valappil Moideen2. This has been referred to in the Bench decision cited and has been overruled. According to the decision of the Bench, ability contemplated by the section applies as much to the case of the child which has got means of its own or which is entitled in law to be maintained and is being maintained by some other person as to a child who is able to live by his own exertions. Ayling, J., in supporting the judgment of Abdul Rahim, J., states that a child which possesses a legally enforceable right to maintenance from its mother’s tarwad stands in the position of a child which possesses property in its own right and that neither can be regarded as ‘unable to maintain, itself’ within the meaning of section 488. The view of the latter as contained in this Bench decision is binding on me but there are certain features in this case which compels me to follow the reasoning and at the same time, to award maintenance to the petitioners herein. The members of the tarwad entered into a karar which has been filed as Exhibit P-1. The view of the latter as contained in this Bench decision is binding on me but there are certain features in this case which compels me to follow the reasoning and at the same time, to award maintenance to the petitioners herein. The members of the tarwad entered into a karar which has been filed as Exhibit P-1. According to the karar, no member mentioned in the karar has got any manner of right and authority under any circumstances either to claim or to get any income in accordance with the share of properties separately allotted to each member under this partition karar or to get any amount towards maintenance. The mother who is acting as guardian of these petitioners has signed this karar voluntarily and it is not suggested that any force was used or that the agreement has been entered into with fraudulent intention. But it is clear that but for the terms of the karar these children would normally be entitled to be maintained from the tarwad and also under the General Marumakkathayam Law under section 35 of the Marumakkathayam Act. But now by the terms of this karar no maintenance can be claimed. It is therefore, unable to maintain itself unless it is able to go to Court and get a declaration that this karar is not binding on the minor children. The minor children are therefore literally unable now to maintain themselves. In the circumstances of this case despite the fact that they are members of the tarwad in which they would be clearly entitled to be maintained, by virtue of the karar, their right is not enforceable without a suit to set aside the karar. Now the income of the property as spoken to by the respondent is that he gets about Rs.66 inclusive of the allowances and pensions and 200 paras of paddy, out of which he gives 100 paras to his father. So what is left is Rs.66 and 100 paras of paddy. The maintenance claimed by the two children per month is Rs.30. But it is represented by Mr.Raghavan appearing for the respondent that the second child is no more, that is after the filing of the revision it appears to have died. The other side is not in a position to dispute the correctness of the statement made by Mr. Raghavan. The maintenance claimed by the two children per month is Rs.30. But it is represented by Mr.Raghavan appearing for the respondent that the second child is no more, that is after the filing of the revision it appears to have died. The other side is not in a position to dispute the correctness of the statement made by Mr. Raghavan. However, as there is no evidence before me as to the death of the child, I must go only by the record. A sum of Rs.30 for both the children is not unreasonable. I, therefore, order that a sum of Rs.30 per month be paid to the mother towards the maintenance of the two children. But if one of them that is, the second child is no more as reported by Mr. Raghavan, then the respondent will pay Rs.15 per month towards the maintenance of the first child. The revision is allowed. The maintenance will be paid from April, 1955. K.S. ----- Revision allowed.