PIL seeking quashment of word ‘minor’ child of Section 488 Cr.P.C DB directs petition to be considered by legislature

STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: In a Public Interest Litigation filed by Bachan Lal Kalogtra a working advocate seeking to declare/quash the word ” minor child” from Clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 488 Cr.P.C and explanation defining minor child, by contending that as per the amended provision, on reaching the age of 18 years, the children are not entitled to get maintenance from their parents a Division Bench of State High Court Comprising Chief Justice N Paul Vasanthakumar and Justice Bansi Lal Bhat observed that declaring the right of child to get education as a fundamental right up to the age of 14 years, we are unable to sustain the argument of the petitioner to declare the amendment as invalid. However, after 14 years also the parents having means are morally bound to extend all help to their children to pursue further studies.
According to PIL by the impugned amendment the Legislature has defined the child as minor child, i.e. one who has not attained the majority and as a consequence of the definition; maintenance is stopped at the age of 18 years when they require most as they are mid-way of their studies.
The petitioner, who is appearing as a party in person, argued that while interpreting the provisions seeking maintenance by wife and children, those who are unable to maintain themselves irrespective of their age were held entitled by Supreme Court in the decision Nanak Chand v. Chandra Kishore Aggarwal and ors, and by virtue of this amendment made in the year 1973 the right of the children to seek maintenance as a matter of right has been taken away under Section 125 Cr.P.C which is in pari materia with Section 488 of the Cr.P.C (State Code), hence a declaration or quashment of the amendment restricting the word “minor child” entitled to claim maintenance is sought for.
Division Bench after hearing petitioner in person whereas Advocate General DC Raina assisted by AAG WS Nargal appearing for the state, further observed that the issue raised by the petitioner is that the persons marrying second wife are not looking after the child born to the first wife beyond 18 years even though they are unable to maintain themselves. Division Bench observed that the said contention also cannot be appreciated as cases of such nature would be few and far between and such persons can avail the civil remedy and merely because one or other father is not looking after the son or daughter of the first wife beyond the age of 18 years, the same cannot be a reason to set aside the amendment.
Division Bench further observed that it is well settled proposition of law that mere possibility of misuse of the provisions is not a ground to declare the provision as invalid. In such circumstances, even though we appreciate the efforts made by the petitioner in person, having regarded to the limited jurisdiction vested with this Court, this Court is unable to find any reason to declare the amendment as invalid. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed leaving the contention raised in this petition to be considered by the legislature at the appropriate time.