ORDER Narain Singh "Azad", J. The petitioners seek quashment of orders dated 17-7-2001, passed by JMFC, Seoni, in M.Cr.C. No. 250/2001, wherein, he granted interim maintenance to respondent No. 2 at the rate of Rs. 350/- per month and the order dated 4-2-2002, wherein, the 1st A.S.J. Seoni, negatived the petitioner's challenge to aforesaid order in Criminal Revision No. 111/2001, filed on behalf of this petitioner. It is an admitted fact that respondents filed maintenance petition u/s 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code against this petitioner in the Court of C.J.M. Seoni, which was registered as M.J.C. No. 250/2001, and by impugned order dated 17-7-2000, the learned J.M.F.C. Seoni, to whom the case stood transferred, granted interim maintenance to respondent No. 2 at the rate of 350/- per month. It is also an admitted fact that respondent No. 1, who filed the maintenance petition, is not the legally wedded wife of the petitioner, who has claimed maintenance on the ground that she gave birth to respondent No. 2 on account of rape committed on her by the petitioner, in the night preceding Deepawali of 1998. It is argued on behalf of this petitioner that in the absence of proof of paternity, the learned J.M.F.C. was not justified in granting maintenance to respondent No. 2, who is alleged to have been begotten on account of rape committed by this petitioner on respondent No. 1, who is not the legally wedded wife. It is settled position of law that a father is liable to maintain his child, legitimate of illegitimate. The basis of a maintenance application on behalf of the child is its paternity, irrespective of the fact of legitimacy or illegitimacy. Even in case of a woman of bad character, her illegitimate child was held entitled for maintenance on the proof of paternity in Hiralal, 18A, 107-108, Lingappa 27M 13.15. Then, at the time of consideration of grant of interim maintenance, the fact of paternity is not required to be proved, which has to be decided at the time of final hearing of the case, on merits. Thus, in the absence of any patent illegality in the orders passed by the Courts below, no interference in exercise of inherent powers is called for and hence this petition does not merit, which is rejected at the stage of motion hearing. Final Result : Dismissed