Judgment : This criminal revision is by one Radhakrishna Naidu against whom one minor Ravi alias Ravichandran through his guardian mother Vedavalli has filed a petition under Sec.125, Crl.P.C. alleging that the said Radhakrishnan, who will be hereinafter referred to as the respondent, has married his mother Vedavalli as his second wife and he (petitioner) was born to them and his father was maintaining both his mother and himself for sometime but he refused to do so for about four years now. His mother has no means of income excepting doing cooly work. Therefore she is not able to maintain the petitioner. Hence his father shall be directed to pay a sum of Rs.250 per mensem to him for maintenance. 2. In the counter statement the respondent denied that he ever married Vedavalli and that the petitioner is his son. He contended that Vedavalli is living with her son the petitioner in the house of the respondent as a tenant. She did not pay rent and therefore he filed a petition against her for eviction. The matter is now pending in the High Court. Thinking of escaping from the case somehow and grabbing the house as her own she has now resorted to file this false petition alleging that the petitioner was born to the respondent through her. Vedavalli is a woman of bad character and she had illicit intimacy with many persons, and there is absolutely no connection between the respondent and Vedavalli. 3. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam, who tried the case, disbelieved the case of the petitioner that he was born to the respondent and therefore he dismissed the petition. However in a revision petition filed by the petitioner the learned Sessions Judge, West Thanjavur came to the conclusion that it is true that the petitioner was born to the respondent through Vedavalli and therefore he allowed the revision and granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.125 per mensem. It is against this order the present revision has been filed by the respondent. 4. Now, admittedly Vedavalli was already married to one Ramaswamy and through him she had two sons and a daughter. Likewise the respondent also was already married to one Jayalakshmi and they have two children. Vedavalli in her evidence as P.W.1 has stated that her husband Ramaswamy is not alive but she would say that she does not know when he died. Likewise the respondent also was already married to one Jayalakshmi and they have two children. Vedavalli in her evidence as P.W.1 has stated that her husband Ramaswamy is not alive but she would say that she does not know when he died. It is not clear as to what happened to the three children born to Ramaswamy through Vedavalli. 5. It is admitted case that the respondent has filed an eviction petition alleging that Vedavalli is residing in his house as a tenant and she was not paying rent and therefore she is liable to be sent out, and this petition for maintenance has been filed only subsequently. According to the respondent this petition has been filed only with the intention of preventing the respondent from evicting her. 6. Now, as regards the paternity of the petitioner, Ex.P-1, dated 5. 1981 Birth Register Extract has been filed. As per this Ravi alias Ravichandran was born to Radhakrishnan and Vedavalli. The respondent denies that he ever gave any information to the Registrar’s Office. P.W.1 Vedavalli would say that it was she who gave the information to Patta Maniam. But there is no column in the document to show as to who gave the information. When the respondent has denied that he gave the information, and Vedavalli as P.W.1, has admitted that it was she who gave the information, the question is whether this document can be put against the respondent. It is true that the date of registration is as early as 5. 1972, but from that alone it cannot be said that the information given is correct. As seen above, P.W.1. Vedavalli would say that she does not know her husband Ramaswamy died. According to the respondent she is of bad character and she had illicit intimacy with many persons. We have further seen above that the respondent is himself already a married man and he has children. There is no satisfactory evidence at all to show that the respondent has married Vedavalli. 7. In those circumstances, may be the petitioner was illegitimately born to the respondent but it may also be that he was not born to the respondent but born to somebody else. There is no satisfactory evidence at all to show that the respondent has married Vedavalli. 7. In those circumstances, may be the petitioner was illegitimately born to the respondent but it may also be that he was not born to the respondent but born to somebody else. It is quite possible that since when a child is born information has to be given as to its paternity, Vedavalli might have given the respondent’s name even though he was not really the person responsible for the birth of the child. Hence on the basis of Ex.P-1. it cannot be said that the petitioner was born to the respondent. 8. The petitioner has also examined P.W.2 Sank-ara Iyer and P.W.3 Chellammal. These two persons have stated to the effect that Vedavalli and the respondent were living as husband and wife for a very long time and the petitioner was born to them. But no whisper about these persons as witnesses has been made in the petition filed for maintenance. Therefore their evidence about the matters which relates to 20 years or more prior to their giving evidence cannot be relied on as trust worthy. 9. In this connection a decision in B. Madhava Rao v. Yasoda Bai alias Radha Bai, 1962 M.L.J. 427, may be referred to in which the facts are almost identical with the facts in this case and the learned Judge expressed a similar view as mine. Thus there is no satisfactory evidence to believe that the petitioner was born to the respondent. I find the trial Magistrate has considered the evidence in the proper perspective but not the learned Sessions Judge in the revision before him. In this view of the matter the criminal revision case is allowed, and the order of the learned Sessions Judge is set aside and the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate is restored and the maintenance petition is dismissed.