Order.- The petitioner filed M.C. No. 148 of 1970 before the Additional First Class Magistrate, Mangalore, against her father the respondent, under section 488(3), Criminal Procedure Code, claiming arrears of maintenance at Rs. 20 per month, in execution of the order in M.C. No. 27 of 1964 of that Court, dated 23rd June, 1965. Her claim was for the period 24th October, 1969 10 23rd November, 1970. The respondent filed a written statement resisting the application. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application. In this Revision the petitioner assails that order. 2. The only material we have is the petition dated 8th December, 1970, and the written statement dated 17th March, 1971. The petitioner did not seek to file a reply. Neither side desired to adduce evidence. 3. The contentions of Sri V.G. Vasantha Kumar, learned Advocate of the petitioner, that the Court below ought to have taken the initiative for evidence being adduced, and that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code for a reply being filed, are propositions which have to be stated only to be rejected. I, however, agree with him that the learned Magistrate was not justified in having recourse to section 489(2), Criminal Procedure Code and also in speculating on the means of the respondent. Even eschewing these two items, the resultant position remains the same as contended by Sri P. Ramachandra Rao, respondent’s learned Advocate. 4. In the petition, the age of the petitioner is not mentioned. It is also not stated that she is unable to maintain herself. In the respondent’s written statement, it is specifically alleged that the petitioner attained majority in about the year 1967, that she is an S.S.L.C. that she earns about Rs. 3 per day and is able to maintain herself, and that she is a healthy person. These allegations remain uncontroverted and it is essentially on the basis of these that the Court below dismissed the petition, though erroneously stating that the order of maintenance is cancelled under section 489(2), Criminal Procedure Code. 5. It is observed in Nanak Chand v. Chandra Kishore Aggarwall1, that the word ‘child’ in section 488 does not mean a minor son or daughter. We find similar observations in a decision of this High Court in Ismail Sheriff v. Nasarin2. 5. It is observed in Nanak Chand v. Chandra Kishore Aggarwall1, that the word ‘child’ in section 488 does not mean a minor son or daughter. We find similar observations in a decision of this High Court in Ismail Sheriff v. Nasarin2. The Supreme Court ruling, however, has further said that the real limitation is contained in the expression ‘unable to maintain itself’ contained in clause (1) of section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed in State v. Ishwar Lal3, that if it is shown that the ‘child’ is a major, there would be a presumption against her that she is able to maintain herself. 6. The petition is for enforcement of order for maintenance. The material provision applicable is therefore clause (3) of section 488, Criminal Procedure Code and, in fact, the petition has been filed under that provision. In order to enforce the order, there must be a failure, without sufficient cause, to comply with the order. It is open to the respondent’s father by way of defence to show sufficient cause why the order should trot be executed (Vide Harinarayan v. Mst. Rani Devi;4 Sadhu Suryanarayana v. Sadhu Laxmi Sundaramma and others.5 7. The respondent has shown by the averments contained in his written statement, which remain uncontroverted, that during the period for which maintenance is claimed in the petition, the petitioner, who was a healthy, educated major, was able to maintain herself and that hence he is not liable to meet her demand. 8. The order of dismissal of the petition does not call for interference in revision, and this Revision Petition cannot be sustained. It stands dismissed. S.V.S. ----- Revision dismissed.