JUDGMENT.- The first defendant in a suit for maintenance by an illegitimate girl represented by her mother as next friend is the appellant before me. The suit was filed in forma pauperis and admittedly the mother of the illegitimate child was for sometime at least a concubine of the first defendant. The case on behalf of the plaintiffs mother and daughter, the mother figuring as the first plaintiff, was that in February, 1955 that is at the end of Thai 1955 the mother was got married to one Thirunavukkarasu, obviously against her desire, that she went to live with him at Gundureddiyur and was there with him just for a period of ten days and after that short stay, she joined the first defendant in his village as his concubine. The evidence, clear and clinching is, that at any rate after leaving Thirunavukkarasu who has figured as P.W. 1, the first defendant has been keeping the woman as his concubine. It is found by both the Courts below that when the mother left her lawfully wedded husband preferring the company of the first defendant, there was a Panchayat at which the marriage was dissolved according to caste custom. The dissolution of the marriage is stated to be in or about the middle of February, 1955. The woman who has been living with the first defendant as his concubine gave birth to a girl on 29th August, 1955, that is about seven months after she left her husband. It is this girl who is the second plaintiff in he case and for whom maintenance is claimed. In both the Courts below and here in Second Appeal the contention on behalf of the first defendant has been that this girl was not his and under section 112 of the Evidence Act she must be presumed to be the child of the lawfully wedded husband who has figured as P.W. 1. The Courts below have awarded maintenance to the child at Rs. 5 per month. Both the Courts below are of the view that there was such animosity between the woman and P.W. 1 whom she had taken as her husband that it is Unlikely that they had any intercourse. While it may be that they had been living together for a period of ten days, the Courts below would hold that the husband had no access. While it may be that they had been living together for a period of ten days, the Courts below would hold that the husband had no access. A perusal of the judgment of the Courts below leaves one with the impression that the Courts below demanded evidence of not merely opportunity for intercourse but evidence that there was intercourse. Certainly that is not the requisite of section 112. In this case, in my view, it is unnecessary even to apply section 112 of the Evidence Act as the question for consideration is whether the first defendant was the father of this girl. The finding is to the effect that the first defendant and this woman had been living together in illicit intimacy from about ten days after she left her husband. This child was born within seven months after she left her husband. There is no evidence that it is not a natural birth after the full period of gestation of about 280 days. In a case of this kind we may rely on section 114 of the Evidence Act having regard to the common course of natural events and human conduct. If it is not a case of premature delivery the coitus leading to conception should have been some two months prior to the woman joining the first defendant after leaving her husband. In the absence of a finding that the first defendant was keeping this woman as his concubine at the relevant period prior to the marriage one cannot assume that he is the father of the child. It follows that the conclusion that this child is the illegitimate child of the first defendant cannot be sustained. Neither of the Courts below have addressed themselves to this aspect of the matter and even on the question of access they have gone wrong. On this view, the claim for maintenance has to fail. However Counsel desire to record what has happened after I posted the case for this day for judgment. Having regard to the fact that this woman had been his concubine, it is stated, that the first defendant offered to pay and paid her Rs. 350 in cash to be used for the benefit of the minor girl. Learned Counsel appearing for the minor child represented by her mother as guardian stated that the amount has been paid into the hands of the mother. 350 in cash to be used for the benefit of the minor girl. Learned Counsel appearing for the minor child represented by her mother as guardian stated that the amount has been paid into the hands of the mother. Learned Counsel appearing for the first defendant further states that the amounts if any deposited by him towards maintenance in the Lower Court pursuant to the decree may be withdrawn by the guardian herself despite the fact that the decree for maintenance is now being reversed. There will be an order that the amounts if any already deposited in Court by the first defendant towards the decree may be paid over the second plaintiff represented by her guardian without any security. In the result, subject to the above direction as to payment out of the amount deposited in Court to the second plaintiff’s guardian, the Second Appeal is allowed. If any costs have already been paid by the first defendant, the plaintiffs will retain the same. The order as to Court-fees made by the trial Court will stand. Otherwise there will be no order as to costs. V.S. ------------ Appeal allowed.