5 12 77 of the Punjab Haryana High Court in Criminal Misc.
On 3rd June, 1974, the son filed a companynter admitting that he had attained majority but claiming that he was still a student, unable to maintain himself.
It was dismissed on 12th March, 1976.
The new Code came into force on 1st April, 1974.
The son claimed that the order in his favour had been validly passed under the old Code and companytinued to remain in force numberwithstanding the enactment of the new Code.
Ranbir Singh, the son, filed a Revision Application before the Sessions Judge.
S. Narula, M. S. Marwah and D. S. Narula for the appellant.
On 25th May, 1971, Kirpal Kaur and Ranbir singh filed an application for maintenance under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898.
K. Mehta, K. R. Nagaraja and P. N. Puri for the respondents.
One of the defences raised by the appellant to that application was that Ranbir Singh was a major and, therefore, number entitled to claim maintenance under Section 488.
150/ per month and that the award of Rs.
By companysent of the parties, the Sessions Judge made a reference to the High Court recommending that the award of maintenance in favour of the wife should be reduced to Rs.
75/ per month to the son should be companyfirmed.
The reference was accepted by the High Court.
The Criminal Procedure Code 1898 was repealed and the Criminal Procedure Code 1974 was enacted in its place.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
On 3rd May, 1974, the appellant made an application before the Magistrate, purporting to be under Section 127 of the new Code, for cancellation of the order of maintenance in favour of the son on the ground that the son had attained majority and did number suffer from any infirmity or abnormality which prevented A him from maintaining himself.
117 of 1978.
Husband and wife became estranged in 1954, since when they have been living separately.
On 19th May, 1973, he made an order awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs.
On 9th May, 1975, the learned Magistrate allowed the application of the father under Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1974 and cancelled the order for maintenance made earlier in favour of the son.
Appeal from the Judgment and order dt.
Petition No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. Jagir Singh, the appellant in this appeal by special leave, was married to Kirpal Kaur in 1951.
The Magistrate held that Ranbir Singh was a student who was unable to maintain himself and, therefore, the question whether he was a major or a minor was immaterial.
Jagir Singh married again and it is said that he has a son and a daughter by the second wife.
75/ per month to Ranbir Singh, Jagir Singh filed a revision petition before the Sessions Judge.
Ranbir Singh, the issue of the marriage, was born in 1954.
200/ per month to Kirpal Kaur and Rs.
3892 M of 1976 .
