The present appeal has been filed against the order of the Family Court dismissing the claim of the appellant for the grant of maintenance to her and to her child which was begotten after her marriage with the respondent. The claim of the appellant has been negatived by the Family Court after perusing the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Ext A. 2. It deserves to be noticed straightway that the Family Court has not gone into the entire evidence brought on the records of the case more particularly the statement of PW1, Pradeep Dutta the employer of the respondent and therefore we intend to refer to his statement in the first instance before referring to the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Ext A. PW 1 Pradeep Dutta has stated on oath that the respondent was a Cameraman in his studio and he worked for a period of four months from January' 94 and during that period he was paying a salary of Rs.650 per month. The respondent told PW 1 that he was a married person and thereafter he came to the Studio of PW 1 with his wife Laxmi Rani Barman that is the appellant. He claims to have gone to the house of the couple more than once and saw them residing as husband and wife. The witness went on to state that he and his wife invited the couple for a dinner. The lady was pregnant when the respondent worked in his studio. Nothing could be elicited in cross examination of the witness making him unworthy of reliance. The cross examination of the witness is as follows: “It is not a fact that I am deposing falsely. It is not a fact that the 1st party and the 2nd party did not go to my house as husband and wife.” 3. The evidence of PW 1 in our considered view establishes the birth of a son to the first and 2nd party when they were staying together. The report Ext A of the Forensic Science Laboratory also corroborates the statement of PW 1. The report reads as under: “According to inheritance of blood group mating of a parent of group 'O' with a parent of group 'O' could produce child of group 'O' only and can not produce child of group A, B and AB. The report Ext A of the Forensic Science Laboratory also corroborates the statement of PW 1. The report reads as under: “According to inheritance of blood group mating of a parent of group 'O' with a parent of group 'O' could produce child of group 'O' only and can not produce child of group A, B and AB. Therefore, the alleged father can not be excluded.” It is not understandable as to how the report goes against the appellant. 4. For the reasons recorded above the appeal is allowed and the, respondent is held liable to pay Rs.200 per month to the second son of the appellant. 5. Before parting with the judgment it is necessary to observe that we are not recording any finding regarding the validity of marriage as even according to the best case of the appellant, the marriage was performed in pursuance of an agreement of marriage. In any case even the illegitimate son is entitled to maintenance and therefore without recording any finding on the point of validity of marriage we grant the maintenance of Rs.200 to the second son. The validity of the marriage is left open for decision in appropriate proceedings. 6. With the aforementioned observation the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. The son of the appellant would get the maintenance at the aforesaid rate from the date of the judgment of the Family Court. No costs.