S. S. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision by the applicant is directed against the order dated 15-6-1984 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 10 of 1982. ( 2 ) AN application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code), claiming maintenance for the minor illegitimate daughter was filed. She is the daughter of Hirondibai who sometimes in or about the year 1980-81 had come to village Karguda to earn her livelihood and stayed with her sister. This sister had been married to Jugul, who was a fisherman. Present applicant Gokulram is also a resident of Karguda. It is alleged that Hirondibai, her sister and Gokulram together used to do fishing. Thus, the present applicant Gokulram came in close contact with Hirondibai and developed illicit intimacy with her. As a result of this, the present non- applicant Saritabai was born to Hirondibai from present applicant Gokulram. Maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/-per month for Saritabai was claimed. ( 3 ) PRESENT applicant Gokulram while admitting that Hirondibai had come to Karguda and stayed with her sister, denied his having developed-alleged illicit intimacy with Rirondi Bai and Saritabai having born from him. He also denied that Hirondibai used to go for fishing with him and alleged that she used to 80 for that purpose with Jugul. He further alleged that when Hirondibai is a state of pregnancy went from Karguda to Saloni to her fathers house and their learning about it a SAMAJIK BAITHAK was held there on 31. 5. 1981 where Hirondibai stated that she has conceived from Jugul the husband of her sister. According to him he is being implicated at the instance of Jugul with whom Hirondibai was still living. He also denied the allegations about his monthly income. As bas been stated his average monthly income is Rs. 100 to Rs. 125. ( 4 ) THE trial Magistrate from the evidence found that Saritabai was born of Hirondibai from present applicant Gokulram. After consideration of the income of Gokulram, an amount of Rs. 75/- per month was awarded is maintenance payable from 1. 4. 1982. Aggrieved by this order, the present petitioner has been filed. 100 to Rs. 125. ( 4 ) THE trial Magistrate from the evidence found that Saritabai was born of Hirondibai from present applicant Gokulram. After consideration of the income of Gokulram, an amount of Rs. 75/- per month was awarded is maintenance payable from 1. 4. 1982. Aggrieved by this order, the present petitioner has been filed. ( 5 ) THE first submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant was that Saritabai being a minor, steps should have been taken to appoint a guardian for her, before the case could be proceeded ahead. When the learned counsel was asked to substantiate his argument by some provision of law, he contended that the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure could have been followed. This argument deserves to be rejected. The record makes it clear that it was the mother, of the minor claimant who had been pursuing the pr9ceediogs for maintenance. She had signed the application and had engaged the counsel and was also examined as a witness. There is nothing to indicate that the mother was in any manner acting contrary to the interest of her minor illegitimate child. ( 6 ) SECONDLY, the finding about the minor child having been born of present petitioner Gokulram was challenged by his learned counsel. This challenge in view of the finding on this question, of the Court below and, the evidence in support thereof is futile. Apart from the evidence of Hirondibai, there is evidence of Gahru (A. W. 1, who had seen Gokulram committing sexual intercourse with Hirondibai. On being told, both Hirondibai and Gokulram told him that it was with their consent and they would marry each other. Gokulram's denial about that allegation has not been accepted and in my opinion rightly. Besides this there is further evidence about some sort of a PANCHAYAT of the Tvillagers being held wherein Hirondibai had said that the pregnancy was from Gokul and even Gokul had owned it. Even Gokulram (N. A. W. 1) admitted that such a PANCHAYAT was held, but what he states is that in the said panchayat, he had denied about Hirondibai having conceived from him. Thus Gokulrams on evidence indicates that Hirondibai in the Panchayat had said that she bad conceived from Gokulram. Even Gokulram (N. A. W. 1) admitted that such a PANCHAYAT was held, but what he states is that in the said panchayat, he had denied about Hirondibai having conceived from him. Thus Gokulrams on evidence indicates that Hirondibai in the Panchayat had said that she bad conceived from Gokulram. Contrary to hat evidence of Gokulram, Kalurams evidence is that Hirondibai had named her brother-in-law Jugul who is the person from whom she bad conceived. It does not stand to reason that if Jugul was the person responsible, he himself will convene such a panchayat as is being suggested on behalf of Gokulram, Mahara (N. A. W. 3) who has been examined witht regard to the panchayat held at village Saloni went to the extent of saying that Hirondibai in that panchayat had stated that her brother-in-law Jugul had told her to name Gokulram as the person from whom she had conceived. If Hirondibai was to really falsely implicate Gokulram, she would not have come out with a statement about her having been tutored by her brother-in-law Jugul. ( 7 ) YET another contention put-forth by the learned counsel for the present petitioner was that Hirondibai has admitted that a document was executed on which she had affixed her thumb mark. No doubt, she has admitted about her having affixed a thumb mark on some document which was got executed from her, but the said document was neither read over to her nor put as such in her cross-examination. The document on which reliance is being placed is Ex. D. 1-A. This document has been produced en behalf of Gokulram and it seeks to implicate Jugul as the person who had committed sexual intercourse with her. The document having not been put or read over to her, cannot be used against Hirondibai and no such inference as is being suggested, can be drawn on the basis of that document. The record indicates that an application for production of this document was filed on 6-6-1984 and by that time the witnesses of the present non-applicant had been examined. Present petitioner Gokulram and his witness Kaluram (N. A. W. 2) had also been examined prior to that date. The document was thus produced in the evidence of Mahara (N. A. W. 3 ). Present petitioner Gokulram and his witness Kaluram (N. A. W. 2) had also been examined prior to that date. The document was thus produced in the evidence of Mahara (N. A. W. 3 ). ( 8 ) IT was then urged that present petitioner Gokulram was much younger in age and he could not be held responsible for the pregnancy to Hirondibai. Gokulrams age in his deposition has been mentioned to be 19 years. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he was married during that very year when this trouble of Hirondibai's pregnancy had started. Apparently, the age of Gokulram being 16 years as mentioned in the present revision is false and mentioned designedly. Thus even this contention bears no merit. ( 9 ) LASTLY it was urged that the amount of maintenance as has been fixed is excessive. The trial Magistrate has assessed the monthly income of Gokulram to be Rs. 300/ -. That amount of monthly income is based more on guess rather than on substantive evidence. On Gokulram's own showing, his monthly income comes to about Rs. 150/ -. The age of the child at the time when the application was filed in the trial Court was about six months. On a totality of the circumstances, the monthly amount of Rs, 75/- as has been awarded by way of maintenance is slightly excessive. In my opinion, Rs. 50/. (Rs. Fifty) per month would be appropriate amount of monthly maintenance at this stage to be awarded for the minor child. ( 10 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this revision is partly allowed. The amount of monthly maintenance as had been fixed by the trial Magistrate is reduced to Rs. 50/. (Rs Fifty) from Rs. 75/ (Rs. Seventy Five ). But for this modification, the order of the trial Magistrate is upheld.