1992 PLP 235 (MLD)

(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.488‑‑‑Maintenance‑‑‑When father is physically fit and is able‑bodied irrespective of the fact that he earns sufficiently or has sufficient physical means or not, he is obliged to provide maintenance to his child. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.488‑‑‑Father was not physically handicapped and as such was able to pay maintenance allowance to his minor daughter‑‑‑Father was physically fit and able‑bodied person therefore to say that he had no sufficient means was no ground to refuse maintenance allowance to his minor daughter. Abdul Latif Dutt for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Taj for the Respondent. Shazia Bibi, minor daughter of Muhammad Yusuf petitioner, moved the learned Additional District Magistrate, Mirpur, under section

488. CrY.C., on August 30, 1988 and prayed for grant of maintenance allowance @ Rs.400 per month. Muhammad Yusuf, petitioner, her father, contested the application and explained tha the mother of the minor secured divorce from him and the minor was living with her mother of her free will, as such he was not under duty to maintain her. It was further stated that he has no sufficient means to pay the maintenance allowance. The learned Magistrate allowed the application by granting maintenance allowance @ Rs. 250 per month, with effect from the date of the application. The order was maintained in revision by the learned Sessions Judge, on August 20, 1991.

2. It is well‑accepted legitimate right in Islam and common law, of child, to claim maintenance from the father. This right has been conferred on the child in consideration of enhancement of unity, harmony and affection between the parents and their children. The relationship of father and child, in fact, raises an edifice of family life, in society. This is why Almighty Allah has emphasised in Holy Our'an the duty of parents to maintain and bring up their children in a forthright manner. Thus, to seek maintenance during the minority is an independent legitimate right of a child against his father.

3. Section 488, Cr.P.C. postulates that when a person having sufficient means, neglects or refuses to maintain his child unable to maintain itself, it is enjoined upon the Magistrate to make an order of monthly allowance for the maintenance of such child. Reference to to "sufficient means" does not imply to physical means in the shape of property or earnings. Suffice it to establish that a father physically fit and able‑bodied who ordinarily can earn his livelihood, is under duty to support his child. May be that a person does not work or earn enough to support his child but that by itself is no ground to decline maintenance allowance to minor. When father is physically fit and is able‑bodied irrespective of the fact that he earns sufficiently or has sufficient physical means or not, he is obliged to provide maintenance to his child.

4. In the present case, it is not a case of the petitioner that he suffered from some physical handicap, as such is unable to pay the maintenance allowance. He is physically fit and able‑bodied person. Therefore, to say that he has no sufficient means, is no ground to refuse maintenance allowance to the minor daughter by the petitioner. No other point was canvassed in support of the petition. There is no force in the petition. It is, therefore, dismissed. N.H.Q./492/H.CA.???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision dismissed.