Judgment :- 1. This is a defendant's appeal. His two minor children represented by their mother as next friend brought the action giving rise to this appeal for a declaration that he is liable to maintain them until each of them comes of age and for a decree directing payment of maintenance. In the plaint maintenance at the rate of Rs. 71/2 per month was claimed for each plaintiff. The District Munsiff of Pathanamthitta who tried the suit granted the declaration asked for and allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5/- per month. The decision was given on 20.1.1950 and maintenance is made payable from 1.2.1950. The defendant seeks to challenge the correctness of the decree by way of this appeal. 2. The parties are Syrian Christians belonging to Travancore. The defendant entered into a marriage alliance with the next friend of the plaintiffs by a registered deed while his lawful wife was alive. It would appear that woman is still alive. The defendant admitted the paternity of the children and that he was not maintaining them. They were not living with him or under his protection. For some years now the parents had fallen out. The defendant's answer to the suit was that he had no legal responsibility to maintain the plaintiffs and that the court could not give the declaration asked for or pass a decree for maintenance. The lower court made short work of his contention by stating that "he (the defendant) is bound in law and in equity to maintain the minor plaintiffs as he has not made out any lawful grounds for not maintaining them." The judgment does not discuss the question or refer to any law or authorities in support of the proposition stated in such broad terms. 3. As the defendant's lawfully wedded wife was alive when he entered into the so called second marriage with the plaintiff's mother, the relationship between the defendant and that woman was one of mere concubinage. The children born of that union are illegitimate. See Viswasam v. Anthoni Nadar 24 T.L.J. 405 (F.B.) and Mariam v. Varki 9 T.L.T. 861. The personal law relating to Christians in Travancore does not make a father legally liable to maintain his children whether they be legitimate or illegitimate. The children born of that union are illegitimate. See Viswasam v. Anthoni Nadar 24 T.L.J. 405 (F.B.) and Mariam v. Varki 9 T.L.T. 861. The personal law relating to Christians in Travancore does not make a father legally liable to maintain his children whether they be legitimate or illegitimate. A view similar to what the learned District Munsiff enunciated in this case is seen set out in a decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in Ghana Kanta Mohanta v. Gereli 1905 I.L.R. 32 Cal. 479. That case related to a claim by an illegitimate child of a Hindu and we shall presently show that view has hardly any foundation. In Trevelayan's Law Relating to Minors (Fifth Edition) it is stated at page 209 that in cases which are not governed by either the Hindu or the Mahomedan law, the English law would apparently be applicable. The learned author further states: "Although that law recognises the duty of the father to maintain and educate his children, the Civil Courts have no direct means of enforcing this obligation, so as to compel him to maintain them out of property in which they have no interest." A reference to text books relating to English law shows that the above is well-supported by recognised authorities. Simpson on the Law of Infants (Fourth Edition) opens the Chapter (VIII) on Maintenance and Education as follows: "Hitherto we have been considering the rights of parents with respect to the custody of their children: we have now to consider their correlative duties. The father's obligation to maintain and educate his children has been constantly recognised both by courts of law and equity; but it being only a duty of imperfect obligation neither court had any direct method of enforcing this duty, though they were enabled to some extent to do so indirectly. "It is now well established that, except under the operation of the Poor Law, there is no legal obligation on the part of the father to maintain his child, unless indeed the neglect to do so should bring the case within the Criminal Law. Civilly there is no such obligation." [p. 129]. To the same effect is the enunciation of the law at page 290 of Vol. I of Stephen's Commentaries on the Laws of England (19th Edition). In Halsbury's Laws of England Hailsham Edn.) at page 579 of Vol. Civilly there is no such obligation." [p. 129]. To the same effect is the enunciation of the law at page 290 of Vol. I of Stephen's Commentaries on the Laws of England (19th Edition). In Halsbury's Laws of England Hailsham Edn.) at page 579 of Vol. II and at page 671 of Vol. XVII the law is set out in the same terms as in the above extract. "The respondent is a Parsi. There is no code of law which governs the Parsis in this country, and except for the statutory law they are governed by the common law of England. Therefore the question that arises is whether under the English Common Law there is any obligation upon a putative father to maintain his illegitimate child. So authoritative a text book as Halsbury's "Laws of England", Hailsham Edition, Vol. II, at p. 579, expresses the emphatic opinion that the father of an illegitimate child, so long as it remains illegitimate, is not recognised by the law of England for civil purposes. Therefore, he is under no obligation to provide for the child, in the absence of any affiliation order. Even a legitimate child has no right under the English Common Law to claim maintenance from its father. As pointed out by Hailsbury in his Hailsham Edition, Vol. XVII, p. 671, except under the operation of the Poor Law, there is no actual legal obligation on a father or mother to maintain a child, unless the neglect to do so would bring the case within the Criminal law. The only duty of a father to maintain his infant children is merely a normal obligation or a duty of imperfect obligation." [A.I.R. 1943 Bom. 338]. Earlier in this judgment we referred to the decision in I.L.R. 32 Cal. 479 and stated that the view the learned Munsiff expressed in this case conforms to an observation contained in that decision. A later Calcutta decision categorically dissented from that view and said: "The broad proposition that under general principles the father of a child is bound to provide for its maintenance such as was suggested in the case of Ghana Kanta v. Gereli has hardly any foundation." 4. Per Mukherji, J. in Walter v. Walter A.I.R. 1928 Cal. 600 at p. 604. Per Mukherji, J. in Walter v. Walter A.I.R. 1928 Cal. 600 at p. 604. This case refers to decided English Cases and the law applied there is in accord with what we find in the text books referred to above. In A.I.R. 1943 Bom. 338, Chagla, J. referred to the decision in I.L.R. 32 Cal. 479 and observed that apart from the fact that the observation that the defendant having begotten the child is bound to provide for its maintenance was obiter, it was difficult to understand what were the general principles the learned judges had in their mind. The learned judge also cited with approval the comment Mukherji, J. made in A.I.R. 1928 Cal. 600 about that decision. 5. In the face of the law as set out in the foregoing decisions and the text books referred to above, it is clear that the decision rendered in this case by the lower court cannot be maintained. We would, however, also refer to the decision of the Madras High Court by Benson and Bhashyam Ayyangar, JJ., in Lingappa Goundan v. Esudasan (1903) I.L.R. 27 Mad. 13. There an illegitimate child of a Hindu through a Christian mother brought an action against the undivided members of the putative father's family after the father had died. The learned judges said that as the plaintiff was a Christian the personal law governing him did not make the father or after the father's death his estate liable to maintain him. The judgment in that case contains the following instructive passage: "In the case of illegitimate children entitled to claim maintenance under the common law i.e., the personal law applicable to them, the statutory remedy given by S. 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code, will only be a cumulative remedy and will not take away the remedy under the Common Law to enforce such right by action brought against the father during his life-time or after his death, against his estate. Beckford v. Hood - 7 T.R. 620 also Ramayyar v. Vedachella [I.L.R. 14 Mad. 441] followed in Sattappa Pillai v. Raman Chetti - I.L.R. 17 Mad. 1. Beckford v. Hood - 7 T.R. 620 also Ramayyar v. Vedachella [I.L.R. 14 Mad. 441] followed in Sattappa Pillai v. Raman Chetti - I.L.R. 17 Mad. 1. But in regard to illegitimate children who, like the plaintiff in this case, are not, under the common law, entitled to claim maintenance from the putative father, the right conferred on them by the statutory law can be enforced only by the particular remedy provided by the statute and to extent therein provided." This view is referred to approvingly by Chagla, J. in A.I.R. 1943 Bom. 338. 6. The plaintiffs while they are minors have certainly a right to claim maintenance from the defendant, under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, but no civil Court could give them relief. The Indian decisions cited above have all been referred to by one of us in a decision of the Cochin High Court in Sarojani v. Ramanarayana Menon 38 (1122) Cochin L.R. 542. The question there was whether a suit for a declaration that the defendant was the father of an illegitimate child was maintainable. The parties were Nairs. Though the opinion expressed by the judge who is a party here that the suit was not maintainable only formed the minority view, that an illegitimate child could not claim maintenance from its father through a civil court was the unanimous view of the three judges who took part in the decision of the case. 7. What remains for us is to refer to a very early decision of the Travancore High Court reported in Narayanaroo v. Kutty 20 T.L.R. 65 brought to our notice by the respondent's learned counsel Mr. P. Kochukrishna Pillai. There the question was whether a Malabar Brahmin who had Sambandhom with a Nair lady was liable to maintain the children born of that union. The majority view was in favour of the plaintiffs to the action that they could claim maintenance, but the decision turned on the custom and usage governing the parties. That decision cannot be held to govern a case where the parties are Christians. In fairness to Mr. Kochukrishna Pillai, it must be said that he candidly admitted that on the authorities it was difficult to support the lower court's decree and that he was not able to come across decided cases or other authorities to sustain it than the decision in I.L.R. 32 Cal. In fairness to Mr. Kochukrishna Pillai, it must be said that he candidly admitted that on the authorities it was difficult to support the lower court's decree and that he was not able to come across decided cases or other authorities to sustain it than the decision in I.L.R. 32 Cal. 479 and 20 T.L.R. 65. 8. In the result the appeal succeeds and setting aside the decree passed by the lower court, we dismiss the plaintiff's suit. Regard being had to the somewhat novel character of the question involved we make no order for costs here or in the court below. The next friend of the plaintiffs will, however, pay the court fee due to the State on the plaint filed by her on behalf of her minor children.