Judgment M.Y.Eqbal, J. 1. This Civil Revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.7.1997 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna, in Claim Case No. 80 (M) of 1995 by which the Court below dismissed the case filed by the petitioner seeking a relief of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The petitioners case, inter alia, is that petitioner No. 1, Neeru Devi was married to Opposite party in the year 1982 and petitioner No. 2 was born on 20.10.1983 from the said wed- lock. The petitioners further case is that petitioner No. 1 came to know in the year 1989 that opposite party was earlier married with one Sona Devi and since there was no issue with her the Opposite party married to petitioner No. 1. She further stated that the dispute and differences between the petitioner No. 1 and opposite party started, as a result of which the opposite party left the petitioners and stopped maintaining them since February 1995. 3. The opposite party appeared and contested the case by filing a show cause. The opposite party denied that the petitioner No. 1 is his legally married wife rather it is alleged that she was married to one person of Karakat P.S. 15 years before and she spent her conjugal life, but in 1982 she deserted him and contacted one Udai Singh and lived with him as a husband and wife and petitioner No. 2 Ranjit Kumar is a child out of the said wed lock. 4. On the basis of the case of the parties, the Court below formulated the following points for consideration: (i) Whether the petitioner No. 1 is legally married wife of opposite party? (ii) Whether the petitioners have no sufficient income for their maintenance? (iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to get maintenance from the opposite party as prayed? 5. Both parties led evidence, oral and documentary and the Court below after considering the evidence decided all the aforesaid points against the petitioners and dismissed the suit. The Court below held that petitioner No. 1 is not legally married wife and there is no evidence to prove that petitioner No. 2 is the son born out of the wedlock of petitioner No. 1 and opposite party. 6. I have heard Mr. Abdul Wadood, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. The Court below held that petitioner No. 1 is not legally married wife and there is no evidence to prove that petitioner No. 2 is the son born out of the wedlock of petitioner No. 1 and opposite party. 6. I have heard Mr. Abdul Wadood, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party. 7. So far finding arrived at by the Court below on the point as to whether the petitioner No. 1 is legally married wife of opposite party, it is the admitted case of the petitioners that before the alleged marriage of opposite party with petitioner No. 1, the former was already married with one Sona Devi, in that view of the matter even assuming that the marriage was solemnised in between the petitioner No. 1 and opposite party, the said marriage is void, and, therefore, petitioner No. 1 cannot be said to be legally married wife. But from the impugned judgment of the Court below it does not appear that question with regard to illegitimacy of the child of opposite party has been considered by the Court below in its right perspective. It is well settled that even if the factum of marriage of the mother is ignored living together of mother and father as a wife and husband will confer the status of illegitimacy of the child and make the mother entitled to get maintenance. It appears that the Court below put much reliance on the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the opposite party over the evidence of petitioner No. 1, her mother and the child who have been examined as P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 respectively. The petitioners also filed three photographs. One photograph is of petitioner No. 1 and the opposite party together and the second photograph is of petitioner No. 1 and opposite party with the child. The third photograph is of petitioner No. 1 and opposite party along with family members of the opposite party. On the other hand, one photograph was filed by the opposite party in which petitioner No. 1 is shown with another man. This photograph has been marked as Ext. A. Curiously enough the Court below has not given much importance of these photographs and has held that by these photographs nothing is proved. On the other hand, one photograph was filed by the opposite party in which petitioner No. 1 is shown with another man. This photograph has been marked as Ext. A. Curiously enough the Court below has not given much importance of these photographs and has held that by these photographs nothing is proved. The Court below further held that if these photographs are taken into consideration, then it has to take that if the petitioner No. 1 has relationship with the opposite party then she has relation with the other person also. The Court below has further come to a finding that these photographs do not prove the parentage of the petitioner No. 2 Ranjit Kumar. The learned Court below also very lightly taken notice of other documents, namely, School diary of petitioner No.2 in which the name of opposite party appears in place of fathers signature and the report card where it is alleged that opposite party has been shown as father of petitioner No. 2. The Court below also has not put much reliance on the letters filed by the petitioners and marked as Ext. 2 series. 8. It is Well settled that in order to draw an inference about paternity of the alleged child, it must be shown that at or about a time the child was conceived the particular person was frequenting in the society of the woman and vice versa and he had access to her. As noticed above the petitioners case is that she (Petitioner No. 1) was married to opposite party in the year 1982 and petitioner No. 2 Ranjeet Kumar born on 28.10.1983, from the said wed-lock. Her further case is that opposite party was already married to Sona Devi. Since opposite party did not get any issue from her, he married petitioner No. 1 without disclosing his earlier marriage which the petitioner came to know in 1989. In support of her case she examined her self, her mother and her child. P.W. 2 mother of petitioner No. 1 in her evidence has deposed about the marriage of her daughter with opp. party in a Mandir. The petitioner also filed three photographs which have been marked as exhibits. The Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidentiary value of these evidence at least for deciding the parentage of the child. P.W. 2 mother of petitioner No. 1 in her evidence has deposed about the marriage of her daughter with opp. party in a Mandir. The petitioner also filed three photographs which have been marked as exhibits. The Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidentiary value of these evidence at least for deciding the parentage of the child. These photographs should not have been ignored merely because there is another photograph of petitioner No. 1 with another man. Curiously enough though the opposite party boldly denied his writing and signature in those letters, school diary and report card, but he has not courage to deny those photographs nor have courage to give explanation as to the circumstances of getting those photographs. In my view these photographs coupled with school diary and report card and letters lead to a different conclusion. One more important aspect which has been completely over-looked by the Court below is the evidence of P.W. 3 Renjeet Kumar who claims to be the son of opp. party. The said witness Ranjeet Kumar when examined, was 12 years old. He has categorically stated that he was living with his father (opp. party) and mother (petitioner) and now he has been living with mother. He further deposed that his father-opp. party is not living with him since 9-10 months. This witness also deposed that he is acquainted with the writings of his father and he proved certain letters. In his cross- examination, nothing has come which suggests that this witness has been tutored. The evidentiary value of a child witness has been considered by the Apex Court and some other High Courts times without number. In the case of Tehal Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 1347 , the Apex Court observed as follows: "Hardip Singh is a lad of 13 years. In our country and particularly in the rural areas, it is difficult to think of a lad of thirteen years as a child. A vast majority of boys round about that age go to the fields and do mens work. They are certainly capable of understanding the significance of the oath and the necessity to speak the truth. The learned Sessions Judge who had the opportunity of seeing the witness Hardip Singh in the witness-box did not consider it necessary to treat him as a child witness. They are certainly capable of understanding the significance of the oath and the necessity to speak the truth. The learned Sessions Judge who had the opportunity of seeing the witness Hardip Singh in the witness-box did not consider it necessary to treat him as a child witness. A perusal of his evidence also shows that he has certainly attained a measure of mature understanding. We do not think we can accept Dr. Chitaleys argument and proceed on the basis of that Hardip Singh is a child witness. Even otherwise, having gone through his evidence we are satisfied that his evidence does not suffer from any infirmity. He was cross- examined at great length but nothing was elicited from him to dub him as a false or a tutored witness. The mere circumstance that he is the son of one of the deceased person does not justify our looking at his evidence with any suspicion." In the case of Dalip Singh and others v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 1173 , in paragraph 7, the Apex Court observed as under : "The third criticism against the evidence of these two witnesses was that they were tutored witnesses and had given the prosecution version parrot like. Both of them were teenaged children of Teja Singh and their version was so truthful that it was rightly believed by the Courts below." 9. As noticed above, petitioner No. 2 in his examination-in-chief has very categorically stated about the relationship of his mother with opposite party and always treated him as his father. He was cross-examined at length but I find that his evidence does not suffer with any infirmity or anything to say that he has been tutored. The evidence of this child witness has been corroborated by other circumstances and the documentary evidence and there is no reason to discard his testimony as being evidence of a child. 10. Before concluding my view, I must take notice of the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court, in the case of Smt. Dukhtar Jehan v. Mohammed Faroog, (1987) 1 SCC 624 : 1987 East Cr C 243 (SC), while considering the provision of Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act. Their Lordships observed as under : "Another serious infirmity noticed in the judgment is that the learned Judge has completely lost sight of Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act. Their Lordships observed as under : "Another serious infirmity noticed in the judgment is that the learned Judge has completely lost sight of Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 112 lays down that if a person was born during the continuance of a valid marriage between his mother and any man or within two hundred and eighty days after its dissolution and the mother remains unmarried, it shall be taken as conclusive proof that he is the legitimate son of that man, unless it can be shown that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at any time when he could have been begotten. This rule of law towards upholding the legitimacy of the child unless the facts are so compulsive and clinching as to necessarily warrant a finding that the child could not at all have been begotten to the father and as such a legitimation of the child would result in rank injustice to the father. Courts have always desisted from lightly or hastily rendering a verdict and that too, on the basis of slender materials, which will have the effect of brandishing a child as a bastard and its mother an unchaste woman." 11. Admittedly in the instant case, it has been accepted by the petitioner that the opposite party was married before he married to petitioner No. 1, but at least there is sufficient materials in this case to hold that there had been access of the opposite party to petitioner No. 1 and vice versa, as a result of which petitioner No. 2 was born. The Court below has failed to consider that petitioner No. 1 was honest enough to admit the dark side of her life by disclosing the earlier marriage of opposite party. Merely doubting her chastity, her evidence cannot be thrown out. Admittedly there was no issue of opposite party from his first wife and, therefore, it may be a strong reason that opposite party went for a second marriage with petitioner No. 1 and in fact lived with her, a result of which petitioner No. 2 was born. It can, therefore, be safely held that petitioner No. 2 is an illegitimate child of opposite party and is entitled to maintenance. 12. Now, the question arises as to what should be reasonable amount for the maintenance to petitioner No. 2 Ranjit Kumar. It can, therefore, be safely held that petitioner No. 2 is an illegitimate child of opposite party and is entitled to maintenance. 12. Now, the question arises as to what should be reasonable amount for the maintenance to petitioner No. 2 Ranjit Kumar. Admittedly, the opposite party is a Sub-Inspector of Police and is in Government service. Petitioner No. 2 is reading in a good school and has been living with his mother and grand-mother. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that grant of maintenance at Rs. 500/- per month will meet the ends of justice. 13. In the result, this Civil revision application is allowed in part and the impugned judgment passed by the Court below so far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned, is hereby set aside. I, therefore, hold that petitioner No. 2 is entitled to get maintenance and opposite party shall pay arrears since and date of passing of the impugned judgment by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna. The Opposite party shall go on paying the maintenance to petitioner No. 2 by the 15th of each month.