ORDER The theory that inability to maintain itself is the only condition which entitles a major child to claim maintenance under section ‘25 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, doss not seem to be correct. 2. The respondents in this case, the wife and major son rely on a decision of this Court in Achuthan Nair v. Leelamma Achuthan Nair v. Leelamma (1975) K.L.T 93 to contend for the proposition that the liability to maintain is in respect of a child irrespective of its age, the only condition being that it should be unable to maintain itself. 3. True in the decision in Achuthan Nair v. Leelamma Achuthan Nair v. Leelamma (1975) K.L.T. 93 this Court had occasion to consider the scope and meaning of the expression ‘Child’. Though there were conflicting judicial decisions on that point, the matter was set at rest by the decision of the Supreme Court in Nanak Chand v. Chandra Kishore Nanak Chand v. Chandra Kishore (1970) 1 S.C.J. 176: (1970) MLJ. (Crl.) 94: (1970)1 S.C.R. 565 : (1970) L.W. (Crl.) 39: A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 446 where it was held that the child referred to in section 488 of the old Code did not mean a minor son or daughter and that the only limitation was contained in the expression “unable to maintain itself”. section 125 of the new Code however makes a slight departure, defines the expression “minor” and limits the condition under which a child who has attained majority can claim maintenance. section 125 (1) reads thus : “125. section 125 of the new Code however makes a slight departure, defines the expression “minor” and limits the condition under which a child who has attained majority can claim maintenance. section 125 (1) reads thus : “125. Order for maintenance of wives Children and parents– (1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain– (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or (c) his 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, or (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself, herself, a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct: Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child refered to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child if married is not possessed of sufficient means. Explanation- For the purpose of this Chapter.– (a) “minor” means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, (IX of 1875), is deemed not to have attained his majority; (b) “wife” includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from her husband and has not remarried”. 4. From the above provision, it is clear that when a person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain a child, the liability will arise if a child, whether it is legitimate, or illegitimate, is a minor. It does not matter whether it is married or not but it is necessary that it is unable to maintain itself. Invariably, a minor child has to be presumed to be unable to maintain itself. 5. It does not matter whether it is married or not but it is necessary that it is unable to maintain itself. Invariably, a minor child has to be presumed to be unable to maintain itself. 5. The liability to maintain a child who has attained majority arise only : (a) if that child is not a married daughter; and (b) if it is unable to maintain itself on account of (i) physical or mental abnormality, or (ii) injury. 6. The Act, therefore, makes it clear that any child who has attained majority is not automatically entitled to claim maintenance even if he is unable to maintain himself as was the case under the old Code. The inability to maintain himself should arise out of physical or mental abnormality or injury. 7. The decision referred to by the learned Counsel for the respondent in Achuthan Nair v. Leelamma Achuthan Nair v. Leelamma (1975) KLT 93 did not consider the scope and ambit of the liability under section 125 and was confined to the application of section 488 of the old Code. 8. The application for maintenance here was filed in 1979. The marriage is not disputed, the paternity is not denied and the quantum of maintenance is not seriously challenged. The liability to maintain the second respondent, the son who was born on 15th May, 1964 continues only till 15th May, 1982. There is no evidence that he has suffering from any physical or mental abnormality or that there was any injury which made him incapable of maintaining himself. The liability to maintain the second respondent will cease on his attaining majority i.e. from 15th May, 1982. The petitioner need pay maintenance at the rate fixed by the Court below so far as the second respondent is concerned, only till 15th May, 1982. This, however, will not prevent the second respondent, the major son from claiming maintenance, if at any time, on a future occasion, clause (c) of section 125 can be invoked in his favour. 9. The order of the Court below is confirmed subject to the above observation. M.C.M. ----- Modified.