Judgment :- 1. This petition raised a question, which appears to be slightly startling to me, under S.488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The objection raised by the petitioner, the alleged father of the respondent, is that the criminal court is not the proper forum for deciding the paternity of the respondent, in other words, the criminal court, under S.488 of the Code, has no jurisdiction to decide a question relating to the paternity of a child. In short, the contention amounts to that the criminal court has jurisdiction to award maintenance only when the paternity of the child is admitted. M V. K. Hamza, the counsel of the petitioner argues that if there is a special law applicable to the father like the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, the Travancore Nayar Act or the Travancore Ezhava Act, it is that special law that has to apply and not the general law contained in S.488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The counsel also contends that since the procedure contemplated by S.488 is only summary procedure, complicated or important and far-reaching questions like the paternity of a child should not be decided by a criminal court under this section. 2. It is not a question of a special law superseding a general law. One purpose of enacting S.488 of the Code is to prevent children, who are not able to maintain themselves, being thrown on the road. In such a case, the legislature thought-and rightly thought-that the putative father must maintain the child so long as the child was not in a position to maintain itself. There is therefore no force in the contention that S.488 contains a general law, which will be superseded by the personal law or the special law of the father. 3. Then about the second contention. If the criminal court has jurisdiction to award maintenance to a child which it undoubtedly has, it must necessarily have the jurisdiction to decide whether a child claiming maintenance is the child of the respondent. If the contention of the counsel is accepted, S.488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will become a dead letter. Of course, the procedure contemplated by the section is only summary procedure; but that does not mean that the moment a complicated question is raised, the criminal court is deprived of its jurisdiction under this section. If the contention of the counsel is accepted, S.488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will become a dead letter. Of course, the procedure contemplated by the section is only summary procedure; but that does not mean that the moment a complicated question is raised, the criminal court is deprived of its jurisdiction under this section. A person who is aggrieved by the order of the criminal court may resort to the civil court, as the order of the criminal court is not final. 4. Since none appeared for the child, I requested Mr. Hamza to see whether there were any authorities bearing on the question; and Mr. Hamza has drawn my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Nand Lal Misra v. Kanhaiya Lal Misra (AIR. 1960 SC. 882). Subba Rao J., who spoke for the Court, observes as follows: The relief given under this Chapter is essentially of civil nature. It prescribes a summary procedure for compelling a man to maintain bis wife or children. The findings of a magistrate under this Chapter are not final and the parties can legitimately agitate their rights in a Civil court. This Chapter is a self-contained one. It recognises the right of a child or wife to claim maintenance. It prescribes the procedure to be followed and provides for the enforcement of the decision of the magistrate. Under S.488, so far as it is relevant to the present enquiry, an illegitimate child unable to maintain itself is entitled to a monthly allowance for its maintenance, if the putative father having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain it. It is suggested that unless the child is admitted by the putative father to be his illegitimate child, the magistrate has no power to make an order for payment of maintenance. This argument, if accepted, would make the entire section nugatory. The basis of an application for maintenance of a child is the paternity of the child irrespective of its legitimacy or illegitimacy. The section by conferring jurisdiction on the magistrate to make an allowance for the maintenance of the child, by necessary implication, confers power on him to decide the jurisdictional fact whether the child is the illegitimate child of the respondent. It is the duty of the court, before making the order, to find definitely, though in a summary manner, the paternity of the child." 5. It is the duty of the court, before making the order, to find definitely, though in a summary manner, the paternity of the child." 5. This observation of the Supreme Court makes it abundantly clear that the criminal court has jurisdiction to decide paternity; and if any party is dissatisfied with the decision, he may resort to the civil court to get that decision set aside. I may point out in this connection that under S.488 (1) a maximum is also fixed for the allowance payable by the father or the husband. Thus, there is no force in the objections raised; and the petition is dismissed. Dismissed.