Judgment :- 1. This reference has been made by the Sessions Judge, Trichur, recommending quashing of the order awarding maintenance to the second petitioner in M. C. No. 50 of 1972 on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kunnamkulam, on the ground that the order is illegal, as she being a major will not come within the meaning of 'the word "child" in Clause.1 of S.488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The circumstances under which this reference happened to be made can be shortly stated: The revision petitioner in Crl. R. P. No. 14 of 1973 before the Sessions Court, Trichur, is the counter petitioner and the respondents in the revision petition are the petitioners in M. C. No. 50/72 on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kunnamkulam. This was an application filed under S.488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, claiming maintenance on the allegations that the revision petitioner married the first respondent, in 1950 in accordance with the religious rites and respondents 2 to 4 were born to them during this wedlock and the revision petitioner neglected and failed to maintain the wife and children. The revision petitioner denied the marriage; but admitted the paternity of respondents 2 to 4. He then contended that he had filed an O. P. before the District Court, Trichur, for dissolution of the marriage between him and the first respondent and the same was pending and that he used to send money to the respondents. 3. On a consideration of the evidence, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate found that the first respondent is the legally wedded wife of the revision petitioner, that respondents 2 to 4 are his children, and that the revision petitioner neglected and failed to maintain them. The learned Magistrate also held that the second respondent though attained majority, is admittedly a sick girl without any employment. On these findings, an order was passed awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs. 25/-per month to the first respondent, Rs. 20/- per month to the 2nd respondent and Rs.15/-each per month to respondents 3 and 4. It was against this order that Crl. R. P. No. 14/73 was filed before the Sessions Court, Trichur. 4. On these findings, an order was passed awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs. 25/-per month to the first respondent, Rs. 20/- per month to the 2nd respondent and Rs.15/-each per month to respondents 3 and 4. It was against this order that Crl. R. P. No. 14/73 was filed before the Sessions Court, Trichur. 4. The points raised before the Sessions Court in support of the revision petition were that the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate ought not to have allowed maintenance to the 1st respondent and also to the second respondent, who is now aged more than 18 years, that the quantum of maintenance awarded was excessive and that the court was not right in giving effect to the order from the date of the petition. The learned Sessions Judge on a consideration of the materials before him found that the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate awarding maintenance to the first respondent is neither illegal nor improper, that, under the law, the Magistrate has power to order payment of maintenance from the date of the petition and that there is no illegality or impropriety in the rate of maintenance awarded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. But he found that S.488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for payment of maintenance only to wife and children, whether legitimate or illegitimate, that "the second respondent has become a major and has ceased to come under the category of 'child"' mentioned in sub-s. (1) of S.488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore the order awarding maintenance to her is illegal. Accordingly, this reference was made to this Court. 5. When this reference came up for hearing neither the revision petitioner nor his advocate appeared before this Court. 6. The only point that arises for consideration under this reference is whether a major son or daughter unable to maintain himself or herself is entitled to claim maintenance under S.488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sub-s. (1) of S.488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states that if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife or his legitimate or illegitimate child unable to maintain itself, a magistrate referred to therein may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for their maintenance at such monthly rate, not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole. The section refers to only wife or legitimate or illegitimate child and it is on this basis that the learned Sessions Judge has taken the view that this section applies only to minor children and not to a major son or daughter. This view or the interpretation put on the word 'child' appearing in the section is clearly wrong. 7. Scope and scheme of S, 488 of the Old Code, have been widened and well defined in the Code of 1973 and S.125 and 126 are the relevant sections in the New Code dealing with the maintenance or wives, children and parents Sub S.1 (b) of S.125 deals with legitimate or illegitimate minor child whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, while Clause (c) relates to legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself. The words 'minor' and 'wife' are also defined in this section. 8. No doubt the word "child " is not defined under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The word "child" has different meanings, according to the context in which it is used. The meaning of the word "child" in the Readers' Digest Great Encyclopaedic Dictionary is "unborn or newly born human-being-boy or girl below the age of puberty; childish person; son or daughter; offspring; descendant, follower or adherent." The object of S.488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to give speedy and urgent relief, by ensuring some supply of food, clothing and shelter to wives and children who are unable to maintain themselves. 9. In Shaikh Ahmed Shaikh Mahomed v. Bai Fatma (AIR. 1943 Bom 48) Beaumont C. J. has observed that the word "child" according to its use in the English language has different meanings, according to the context; that where this word is used with reference to parentage, it means a descendant of the first degree, a son or a daughter and has no reference to age; that where this word is used in conjunction with parentage, it is riot concerned with age; that in S 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure this word is used with reference to the father and that therefore, there is no qualification of age and the only qualification is that the child must be unable to maintain itself. It was held therein that there is no justification for saying that S.488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is confined to children who are under the age of majority. In Jagir Kaur v. Jaswant Singh (AIR. 1963 S.C.1521) Subba Rao J., as he then was, observed that S.488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure providing for maintenance of wives and children intends to serve a social purpose. If the word "child" under S.488 of the Code is to be restricted to a minor, a cripple or an imbecile or otherwise handicapped son or daughter who has attained majority, would be left without any legal remedy against his of her well-to-do parents. The section does not refer to the age of the child and therefore to say that a "child" means only a minor person would be reading something into the section which is not there. The legislature appears to have deliberately omitted reference to any particular age in the section and the emphasis is made on the phrase "unable to maintain itself". In Abdul Hai Qadir Bux v. Ku. Azra Sikander (AIR. 1965 All. 125) it has been held that the word "child" does not mean a minor and that it is reasonable to hold that "child" means, without reference to the age of majority, a son or a daughter, who is unable to maintain himself or herself. The decisions of various High Courts are sharply conflicting on this point; some of the High Courts taking the view that "child" under S 488 Cr. P.C means only a minor, that after majority he or she becomes capable of maintaining himself or herself and is therefore no longer a child; while some others taking the view that this section confers right on any son or daughter, irrespective of their age, to obtain maintenance allowance so long as he or she is unable to maintain himself or herself. This conflict of opinion amongst the High Courts and also amongst the judges of the same High Court has been set at rest by the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Nanak Chand v. Chandra Kishore Aggarwal (AIR. This conflict of opinion amongst the High Courts and also amongst the judges of the same High Court has been set at rest by the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Nanak Chand v. Chandra Kishore Aggarwal (AIR. 1970 S.C. 446), where it has been held that the word "child" in 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not mean a minor son or daughter and that the real limitation is contained in the expression "unable to maintain itself." This Reference is therefore not accepted. The order of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate does not call for any interference.