G. B. PATNAIK, J, J. ( 1 ) THE writ application and the Criminal Revision were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment ( 2 ) THE short question that arises for consideration in the writ application is whether under Section 125 (1) (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'code'), the expression father has any limitation therein or would include the opposite party No. 1 who alleges that the petitioner is his illegitimate son. The aforesaid question arises under the following circumstances. Opposite party No. 1 filed an application under Section 125 (1) (d) of the Code claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500. 00 per month. It was averred in the application that he is the father of the petitioner and petitioner was given birth by a lady called Sunafula, who voluntarily left the house of opposite party No. 1. The said opposite party No. 1 took adequate care of the petitioner so long as he was in service. But after his retirement, he is unable to maintain himself and even though the petitioner as son is liable to maintain opposite party No. 1, but he has neglected to maintain opposite party No. 1 and, therefore, opposite party No. 1 claimed maintenance under Section 125 of the Code. ( 3 ) THE petitioner filed an objection stating therein that his mother Sunafula was the legally married wife of opposite party No. 1 and in fact the marriage was solemnized in the year 1960. It was further alleged that while opposite party No. 1 was living with petitioner's mother as husband and wife, said opposite party No. 1 developed intimacy with one Ashalata and when petitioners mother protested, he drove her away and it is the petitioner's mother who took lot of pains in getting the petitioner educated. It was also averred in the objection that opposite party No. 1 draws his pension regularly and is able to maintain himself and, therefore, the application under section 125 of the Code is not maintainable. ( 4 ) THE learned Magistrate on consideration of materials before him came to hold that opposite party No. 1 is the father of the petitioner and petitioner has sufficient means but had neglected his old father after his retirement and accordingly directed the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month. ( 4 ) THE learned Magistrate on consideration of materials before him came to hold that opposite party No. 1 is the father of the petitioner and petitioner has sufficient means but had neglected his old father after his retirement and accordingly directed the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order filed a revision before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge having dismissed the revision, the petitioner has filed the present writ application. ( 5 ) THE sole contention raised by Mr. Mohapatra appearing for the petitioner is that opposite party No. 1 having averred in his application that the petitioner is an illegitimate son of his, is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 (1) (d) of the Code and the application is liable to be rejected on that score. In view of this submission of Mr. Mohapatra for the petitioner, section 125 (l) (d) requires an interpretation as to what is tile meaning of the expression father. For a proper appreciation of the point in issue, section 125 (1) of the Code is extracted here in below in extenso1125 Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. In view of this submission of Mr. Mohapatra for the petitioner, section 125 (l) (d) requires an interpretation as to what is tile meaning of the expression father. For a proper appreciation of the point in issue, section 125 (1) of the Code is extracted here in below in extenso1125 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 of 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 herself, or (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of the First Class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such I 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 referred 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.- Under the old Criminal Procedure Code, there was no provision for the maintenance of parents if they were unable to maintain themselves and a provision for them was made by inserting clause (d) to section 125 (1 ). Under Section 125, children whether legitimate or illegitimate can claim maintenance and the basis of an application for such maintenance is the paternity of the child irrespective of legitimacy or illegitimacy. Since under the law, an illegitimate child can claim maintenance from his father under Section 125 (1) (b) and (c), there is no reason as to why a father under clause (d) cannot claim maintenance from his illegitimate child. Since under the law, an illegitimate child can claim maintenance from his father under Section 125 (1) (b) and (c), there is no reason as to why a father under clause (d) cannot claim maintenance from his illegitimate child. That apart, it is a cardinal rule of interpretation that the language used by the legislature is the true repository of the legislative intent and the words occurring in a statute must have the ordinary grammatical meaning, unless such meaning being given, the object of the statute is frustrated. In other words, a word in any statute must receive its ordinary, popular, grammatical meaning unless such a construction leads to an absurdity or the object of the statute suggests a different meaning. In this view of the matter, we do not find any justification for giving a different meaning to the word father used in section 125 (1) (d) of the Code and further we do not find any substance in the argument of Me. Mohapatra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that an application by father for maintenance against his son will not be maintainable merely because the father has alleged that the son is his illegitimate son. A claim of maintenance by the father is not dependent upon his having discharged his parental obligations during the childhood of the child. The petitioner does not dispute that the claimant-opposite party No. 1 is not his father and opposite party No. 1 claimed that he is the father of the petitioner and as such is entitled to receive maintenance from the son as he is unable to maintain himself. Thus it is the common case of the parties that the applicant-opposite party No. 1 is the father of the petitioner. Consequently, the application filed by him cannot be held to be not maintainable merely because he had made an assertion that the son was not his legitimate son. There is no concept of an illegitimate father though there is a concept of illegitimate child. Consequently, the application filed by him cannot be held to be not maintainable merely because he had made an assertion that the son was not his legitimate son. There is no concept of an illegitimate father though there is a concept of illegitimate child. In view of the legislative intent behind grant of maintenance to a father under Section 125 (1) (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is no justification for a Court to give to the said word a meaning other than the plain grammatical meaning of the word and, therefore, the application filed by opposite party No. 1 must be held to be maintainable notwithstanding the assertion made by him that the petitioner is not his legitimate son. The submission of Mr. Mohapatra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore; must be rejected. No other contention having been raised and the only contention having failed, the writ application fails and is accordingly dismissed. ( 6 ) SO far as the Criminal Revision is concerned, the same has been filed by the father against the order of maintenance granted to his wife (opposite party ). The Magistrate having granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month from the date of the application, the revision has been filed. In the said proceeding, the Magistrate has found that the opposite party is the legally married wife of the petitioner. He has further found that the opposite party has been neglected by the petitioner and the said opposite party has no sufficient means. Taking into consideration the income, the order of maintenance has been passed. The only ground of attack to the order of the Magistrate is that the finding on the question of marriage is not in accordance with law. But the Magistrate having applied his mind to the relevant materials and having found that the marriage between the petitioner and opposite party was solemnized and the opposite party is the legally married wife of the petitioner, it is difficult for the revisional court to interfere with the said finding. The quantum of maintenance granted also cannot be said to be arbitrary keeping in view the present day cost of living. In the aforesaid premises, the Criminal Revision is also liable to be rejected. ( 7 ) IN the net result, therefore, both the writ application and the Criminal Revision are dismissed. The quantum of maintenance granted also cannot be said to be arbitrary keeping in view the present day cost of living. In the aforesaid premises, the Criminal Revision is also liable to be rejected. ( 7 ) IN the net result, therefore, both the writ application and the Criminal Revision are dismissed. We make no order as to costs. Both dismissed.