Order: This petition by the husband and father is directed against the order for maintenance made by the City Magistrate, Mysore, in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 81 of 1970 under section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The respondents are the wife and son. They preferred a petition under section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the present petitioner alleging that they were his wife and son. The husband is shown to be a maistry in the spinning branch of a textile mill at Mysore. Between the two respondents they had claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250 per month. The defence is that the first respondent had been divorced within a few years of the marriage and that the second respondent was not the son born of them. It is relevant to note that the age of the 2nd respondent has been shown in the petition as fifteen years. 2. The learned Magistrate negatived the contentions urged on behalf of the husband and father and directed payment of maintenance to each of the petitioners at the rate of Rs. 30 per month. 3. On behalf of the petitioner herein two contentions were urged by Sri T. Rangaswami Iyengar, the learned counsel. They are: (1) that the first respondent herein (the wife) had been divorced and therefore there was no question of paying any maintenance to her; and (2) that the age of the second respondent was not as shown in the petition and he was really aged nineteen years as per Exhibit P-1 the certificate of birth produced in the case on behalf of the respondents themselves. I shall now proceed to examine these contentions. On the first contention the learned Counsel depended on a publication by late Sri H.V. Nanjundaiah, regarding the schedule castes and schedule tribes of the former State of Mysore. He also drew attention to a recital therein to the effect that divorce was common among the schedule castes and the form of ceremony to be gone through was quite simple in nature. On behalf of the respondent Sri B. Tilak Hegde, the learned Advocate contended that what is alleged in the petition is divorce by custom and, that being the position, it ought to have been established like any other fact by adducing adequate evidence. On behalf of the respondent Sri B. Tilak Hegde, the learned Advocate contended that what is alleged in the petition is divorce by custom and, that being the position, it ought to have been established like any other fact by adducing adequate evidence. He further contended that having regard to the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, it would not be open to any person to establish such custom unless the requirements of the relevant statutory provisions were satisfied. In reply, it is contended on behalf of the present petitioner that the divorce pleaded was prior to the coming into force of that Act. Whatever may be the correct factual position bearing on this question and assuming that the contention urged on behalf of the present petitioner that the divorce was prior to the Act of 1955, in my opinion, it would still be necessary for him to establish such a divorce by custom by adducing adequate evidence. This has been the conclusion of the Court below on this question. I see no reason to differ from it. 4. It is needless to observe that any determination of such an issue in a summary proceeding under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code would not preclude a party from establishing it in any suit that may be filed for the purpose in a civil Court. 5. On the next contention, in is argued that having regard to the provisions of section 488 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code, for a son, whether legitimate or illegitimate, to lay claim to maintenance under section 488 he must establish that he is unable to maintain himself, among other requisite conditions. It is seen from the record before me than the second respondent is now nineteen years of age, on his own showing, and therefore he must have been about 16 to 17 years on the date of the petition before the lower Court. Having regard to the community to which the parties belong it is reasonable to expect that a boy of that age would have started earning for himself. Be that as it may, it is still open to such a person to show that he is unable to maintain himself, and therefore, it was the obligation of the father to maintain him in accordance with the provisions of section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Be that as it may, it is still open to such a person to show that he is unable to maintain himself, and therefore, it was the obligation of the father to maintain him in accordance with the provisions of section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is clear from the evidence on record that the second respondent has not even stepped into the witness box in proof of such an assertion, if any. In the state of the evidence, it is also not clear from the evidence of the mother, that this boy had been unable to maintain himself at the relevant point of time. In this state of affairs, it is reasonable to hold that the second respondent has not established the necessary ingredient relevant to his inability to maintain himself. Hence the portion of the order awarding maintenance to 2nd respondent cannot be sustained. It is further to be made clear that it is open to the 2nd respondent to assert his claims for such maintenance if circumstances warrant such a course, by filing a separate petition under section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 6. In the result, this petition partly succeeds and is allowed to the extent indicated above. Consequently, the award of maintenance in favour of Mahalaxmamma(the first petitioner in the lower Court) is maintained and the award of maintenance to the second petitioner (in the lower Court) is hereby set aside. There will be no order as to costs.