( 1 ) THIS petition under S. 482 of the Cr. P. C. i s directed against the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track court, Shimoga, dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner herein under S. 397 of the cr. PC. and confirming the order of maintenance passed by the trial Court. ( 2 ) THE facts in a nutshell are to the effect that the respondent herein and her grandmother filed a petition under S. 125 of the cr. P. C. claiming maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month to respondent-Rajeshwari on the ground that the said respondent was the child born out of the marriage between the petitioner herein and one Sukanya, the mother of respondent-Rajeshwari. It was the case of the respondent that the petitioner herein married said sukanya and out of their wedlock Rajeshwari was born and thereafter, as the petitioner herein belonged to a different community than that of Sukanya, the marriage did not last long and the petitioner thereafter left Thirthahalli and later on married one Vilasini and out of the said marriage, two children were born. In the meanwhile, Sukanya, mother of respondent-Rajeshwari also left the place and went on to eke her livelihood by working as an aya under a medical officer. Therefore, the maintenance petitiori was filed by the daughter and the mother of Sukanya. ( 3 ) THE said petition was contested by the petitioner herein by contending that the petitioner never married to Sukayna at any point of time and the child Rajeshwari, the respondent herein, was not the child born to the petitioner. It was also contended by the petitioner before the trial Court that no relationship of husband and wife existed between him and sukanya, mother of respondent-Rajeshwari, and, therefore, the respondent is not the daughter of the petitioner. Both parties led evidence in support of their respective stand and the learned Magistrate, after considering the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 and the documents Exs. P-1 to P-3 placed on behalf of the petitioners before the trial Court and after considering the evidence of R. Ws. 1 and 2 and the documents exs. R-1 to R-10 placed on behalf of the petitioner herein, came to the conclusion that respondent-Rajeshwari is the daughter of the petitioner herein and accordingly, ordered maintenance at the rate of Rs. P-1 to P-3 placed on behalf of the petitioners before the trial Court and after considering the evidence of R. Ws. 1 and 2 and the documents exs. R-1 to R-10 placed on behalf of the petitioner herein, came to the conclusion that respondent-Rajeshwari is the daughter of the petitioner herein and accordingly, ordered maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month to be payable by the petitioner to the above said Rajeshwari. The said order of the trial court was questioned in the revision before the Fast Track Court at Shimoga in Crl. R. P. No. 192/2004 and the revisional Court dismissed the said revision by confirming the order of the Magistrate. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the dismissal of the revision petition, this petition has been filed under S. 482 of the Cr. P. C. praying to set aside the orders passed by both the Courts below on the ground that the Courts below did not seek the opinion of the D. N. A. expert with regard to the paternity of the child Rajeshwari. and the evidence placed before the trial Court were not of conclusive nature to establish the relationship between the petitioner herein and respondent-Rajeshwari. For these reasons, the orders passed by the Courts below are to be set aside. ( 5 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Ramesh and the learned counsel for the respondent-Sri Prakash and perused the lower Court records as well as the orders passed by both the Courts below. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the stand of the petitioner throughout has been one of negative in the sense that the petitioner did not marry Sukanya at any point of time and, therefore, the question of respondent-Rajeshwari becoming the daughter of the petitioner did not arise. The documents produced by the petitioners before the trial Court viz. , the ration card, birth certificate and one photograph are not in themselves sufficient proof of the factum of the marriage having taken place between the petitioner herein and Sukanya, mother of the respondent. It is also submitted that the name of the father of Rajeshwari has been shown as 'ramachandra' in the birth certificate whereas, the correct name of the petitioner is 'ramachandra Jois' and further, the petitioner belongs to Brahmin community whereas the above said Sukanya belongs to Mogaveera community. It is also submitted that the name of the father of Rajeshwari has been shown as 'ramachandra' in the birth certificate whereas, the correct name of the petitioner is 'ramachandra Jois' and further, the petitioner belongs to Brahmin community whereas the above said Sukanya belongs to Mogaveera community. For all these reasons, the trial court could not have accepted the documents produced as per Exs. P-1 to P-3. ( 7 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the evidence placed by P. W. 1 Bhavani, grand-mother of rajeshwari, and P. W. 2 Sukanya, mother of rajeshwari, would go to establish the fact of the petitioner herein married and resided with said Sukanya for over five years at Thirthahalli and it was during that period, the said child rajeshwari was born. The stand of the petitioner before the trial Court was one of total inconsistency inasmuch as at one stage, the petitioner took up the stand that he does not know Sukanya or Rajeshwari, but subsequently, in the course of the cross-examination, he did admit that Sukanya was known to him as she and her mother were the tenants in the house of the petitioner's-grand-father and thereafter under the petitioner's-father. Therefore, it is obvious that the petitioner was trying to wriggle out of the situation by deposing to the contrary as above and, as such, in the face of the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 and exs. P-1 to P-3, the view taken by the trial court cannot be termed as perverse and, therefore, having regard to the nature of the proceedings under S. 125 of the Cr. P. C. , both the Courts below have rightly concluded that the child Rajeshwari is the daughter of the petitioner herein and consequently, allowed the application filed for maintenance by awarding Rs. 500/- per month to respondent-Rajeshwari. ( 8 ) ONE other submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent is that, nothing prevented the petitioner from placing evidence in order to dispute the relationship between him and respondent-Rajeshwari and it is not permissible at this stage for the petitioner to contend for the first time before this Court that D. N. A. test ought to have been conducted to find out the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. ( 9 ) HAVING thus heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and after carefully going through the entire evidence on record, what becomes clear is that, on the side of the respondent, there is evidence of the grand-mother (P. W. 1), mother Sukanya (P. W. 2) and one Sanjiva (P W. 3), a coolie, to indicate that this petitioner had married sukanya and out of their wedlock, child rajeshwari was born. In support of their evidence, they have also placed on record Exs. P-1 to P-3 which are the ration card, birth certificate and one photograph without negative. Exs. P-1 and P-2 mention the name of one ramachandra and in Ex. P-2, birth certificate, in particular, mentions that a girl child was born on 1-12-1998 at J. C. H. Hospital, thirthahalli, and the name of the father is given as Ramachandra and that of the mother as Sukanya. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner disputed these two documents exs. P-1 and P-2, there is the document produced by the petitioner himself as per Ex. R-2, the wedding card, which mentions his name as Ramachandra and as Ramachandra Jois, as contended by the petitioner herein. Although the petitioner, examined as R. W. 1, has taken the stand that he never married Sukanya and that respondent-Rajeshwari was not born to him as he belonged to Brahmin community and Sukanya belongs to Mogaveera community, the entire material, as placed before the trial Court, does not disentitle the respondent herein from seeking maintenance. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Magistrate as well as the revisional court, the remedy lies elsewhere. The proceedings under S. 125 of the Cr. P. C. being in the nature of summary proceedings and as the aim of S. 125 of the Cr. P. C. is not to punish for the past but to prevent future vagrancy by compelling those who are capable to support those who are unable to support themselves and for a moral claim to support, in the instant case, as the evidence placed by P. Ws. P. C. is not to punish for the past but to prevent future vagrancy by compelling those who are capable to support those who are unable to support themselves and for a moral claim to support, in the instant case, as the evidence placed by P. Ws. 1 to 3 does not give room to take the view of non-access between the petitioner and sukanya, mother of Rajeshwari, the order passed by the trial Court granting maintenance, therefore, does not require interference, particularly having regard to the scope of S. 482 of the Cr. P. Cr ( 10 ) EVEN if the paternity question requires a consideration, the petitioner herein has every right to seek appropriate remedy in the civil Court and in this regard, the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Dukthar Jahan v. Mohammed Farooq, reported in AIR 1987 SC 1049 , are worth recalling : "16. The proper course for the High Court, even if entitled to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below in exercise of its powers under S. 482 of the Cr. P. C. should have been to sustain the order of maintenance and direct the respondent to seek an appropriate declaration in the Civil Court, after a full-fledged trial, that the child was not born to him and, as such, he is not legally liable to maintain it. Proceedings unders. 125, cr. P. C. , it must be remembered, are of summary nature and are intended to enable destitute wives and children, the latter whether they are legitimate or illegitimate, to get maintenance in a speedy manner. The High Court, therefore, clearly in error in quashing the order of maintenance in favour of the child. " ( 11 ) IN the light of the aforesaid proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court, I am of the considered opinion that this petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.