ORDER K. Sankaran, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the lower court's order in M. O. No.10/ 1956 on the file of that court. That was a case filed by the mother and herthree children, under S.488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for an orderagainst the respondent to pay maintenance for the three children alleged to beborn to him in the first petitioner. According to the 1st petitioner, she is thelegally wedded wife of the respondent and petitioners 2 to 4 are the childrenborn of that union. The respondent has subsequently married another lady andthereafter he has been neglecting to maintain these petitioners.The first petitioner, however, has not claimed anything for her maintenancefrom the respondent. The claim for maintenance has been put forward only onbehalf of the minor children who are petitioners 2 to 4. On behalf of thepetitioners the first petitioner as Pw. 1 gave evidence in support of her casethat she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and that petitioners 2 to 4are the children born to her from the respondent. Exts. P1 to P5 were alsoproduced to prove the case of her marriage with the respondent.The learned Magistrate discarded this evidence as insufficient to prove themarriage between the first petitioner and the respondent. He further found thatwhen the marriage between the first petitioner and the respondent is notproved "there is no scope in this case for a finding that the counter petitioner isthe father of the children on whoso behalf maintenance is claimed." consistentwith such a conclusion, the petition filed on behalf of these children wasdismissed. The petitioners have therefore come up in revision. 2. Even if the learned Magistrate was right in holding that the marriagebetween the first petitioner and the respondent has not been proved by anyindependent evidence, his further conclusion that in the absence of such proofthere is no scope for finding that the respondent is the father of petitioners 2 to4, will not necessarily follow. For sustaining a claim for maintenance on behalfof the minor children it is not necessary to prove that they were born to therespondent as the result of a legal marriage. Even if it is proved that thesechildren were born to him as the result of an illegitimate union, the father isbound to maintain them. For sustaining a claim for maintenance on behalfof the minor children it is not necessary to prove that they were born to therespondent as the result of a legal marriage. Even if it is proved that thesechildren were born to him as the result of an illegitimate union, the father isbound to maintain them. Apart from this aspect it has to be stated that the learned Magistrate came tothe conclusion that the marriage between the first petitioner and therespondent has not been proved, without a proper appreciation of theevidence already referred to and without examining the witnesses whom thefirst Petitioner wanted to examine. The question of the marriage betweenherself and the respondent was agitated in a prior proceeding to which both ofthem were parties. It was a case of bigamy initiated by the first petitioneragainst the respondent. Ext. P 4 is copy of the order in that case and it showsthat it was definitely found that the first petitioner had been legally married bythe respondent.The learned Magistrate was not right in ignoring this finding altogether and inholding that he can decide the question of the marriage between these partiesonly on the basis of the evidence adduced in the present case. The finding inExt. P 4 has to be given its due weight in the appreciation of the evidence inthe present case. Exts. P 1 to P 3 are also relied on by the first petitioner tocorroborate her sworn statement that the respondent had married her. Therespondent was for some time in military service and Ext. P 3 is his servicebook. This service book is in the possession of the first petitioner and she hasproduced it in this case. The fact that this book has been in the possession of the first petitioner iscertainly a circumstance in support of her case that the respondent and herselfwere living as husband and wife. Exts. P 1 and P 2 are said to be letters sentby the respondent to the first petitioner. These letters also go in support of herease of the relationship between them. The letters, though not signed byanybody, are stated to be in the handwriting of the respondent. He has notgone into the witness-box to deny these letters, in the circumstances of thiscase the lower court should have examined him. If he deliberately declines to go into the box, such a conduct would justify thenecessary adverse inferences being drawn against him. The letters, though not signed byanybody, are stated to be in the handwriting of the respondent. He has notgone into the witness-box to deny these letters, in the circumstances of thiscase the lower court should have examined him. If he deliberately declines to go into the box, such a conduct would justify thenecessary adverse inferences being drawn against him. Since the firstpetitioner wanted to examine some witnesses on her side, the lower courtshould have taken the necessary steps for getting at those witnesses to giveevidence in the case. The summary manner in which the case was disposedof without taking the necessary steps in that direction, cannot be said to havebeen proper in the circumstances of this case. I think that the case has to besent back to the lower court for fresh disposal after examining the petitioner'switnesses and the respondent also, if possible. 3. In the result this revision petition is allowed and the order of the lower courtis set aside. The case is sent back to the lower court for fresh disposal inaccordance with law and in the light of the observations made above.