Order.- This is a Reference under section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, by the Sessions Judge, Trivandrum in respect of an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Neyyattinkara, directing the counter-petitioner in M.C. Case No. 34 of 1968 to pay maintenance to his two children, who are petitioners 2 and 3 therein, at the rate of Rs. 25 each from the date of the petition, viz., 8th November, 1968 till they attain the age of 20 under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. The petition in the lower Court was for maintenance by the wife and children against the father of the children. After trial, the above order was passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Under section 435, Criminal Procedure Code, the Sessions Judge on a consideration of the order made this reference. Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, does not prescribe any age limit of the child for maintenance to be awarded. The ground for ordering maintenance under that section was proof of neglect or refusal to maintain the child by the father. It is pointed out in a decision reported in Musammat Khedani Rajwarin v. Lagan Singh1, that there is no limit of age laid by section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, for maintenance allowance to be awarded to a child. Such maintenance should be directed to be paid until the child can maintain itself. The same view is expressed in Nanak Chand v. Sri Chandra Kishore Agarwala and others2. The observation is as follows: “The word ‘child’ according to its use in the English language has different meanings, according to the context. If used without reference to parentage, it is generally synonymous with the word ‘infant’ and means a person who has not attained the age of majority. Where the word ‘child’ 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. In certain contexts it may include descendants of more remote degree, and be aquivalent to ‘issue’. But, at any rate, where the word ‘child’ is used in conjunction with parentage, it is not concerned with age. No one would suggest that a gift” to all my children “or” to all the children of A“should be confined to minor children. In section 488, of the Criminal Procedure Code the word is used with reference to the father. But, at any rate, where the word ‘child’ is used in conjunction with parentage, it is not concerned with age. No one would suggest that a gift” to all my children “or” to all the children of A“should be confined to minor children. In section 488, of the Criminal Procedure Code the word is used with reference to the father. There is no qualification of age; the only qualification is that the child must be unable to maintain itself. There is no justification for saying that this section is confined to children who are under the age of majority. In view of the reasons it has to be held that the word ‘child’ in section 488 does not mean a minor son or daughter and the real limitation is contained in the expression ‘unable to maintain itself.‘” In the light of the above observation, it is clear that the Sub Divisional Magistrate was wrong in fixing the age limit for payment of maintenance to petitioners 2 and 3 as they would be entitled to get maintenance until they can maintain themselves. The said order fixing the age limit by the lower Court is therefore liable to be vacated. In the result, the Reference is accepted and the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate fixing the age limit for the receipt of maintenance allowance till petitioners 2 and 3 attain the age of 20 is vacated and in other respects the order of the trial Court will stand. M.C.M. ------ Reference accepted; age limit vacated.