JUDGMENT 1. - Aggrieved by the order dated 20.02.2010, passed by the [earned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, whereby the learned Judge has directed the petitioner-husband to pay a maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- for the daughter, Annae, and has denied the payment of maintenance to the respondent-wife, the petitioner-husband has approached this Court. 2. Mr. Mrinmay Bhattmewara, the learned counsel for the petitioner-husband, has vehemently contended that the respondent-wife was denied the maintenance on the ground that she was living in adultery. Moreover, according to the petitioner-husband, the child, Annae, is a product of adulterous behaviour. He has further contended that Annae is not his legitimate child. According to the petitioner-husband, the respondent-wife had left him on 06.04.2003 and Annae was born thereafter. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 4. Vide order dated 23.05.2011, this Court had directed the learned counsel for the petitioner-husband to find out the exact date of birth of Annae. According to him, she was born in January, 2004. Therefore, even if the plea is taken to be true that the wife had left the petitioner-husband on 06.04.2003, even then she would be in a position to deliver a child in January, 2004 as January is the ninth month from April. 5. Considering the fact that the petitioner-husband and the respondent-wife were living together till 06.04.2003, considering the fact that Annae was born in January, 2004, considering the fact that under Section 112 of the Evidence Act there is a presumption that a child born during the wedlock is a legitimate child of the husband, this Court holds that Annae is the legitimate child of the petitioner-husband. Moreover, no evidence has been led by the petitioner-husband in order to rebut the presumption which is available in law, under Section 112 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that he should be absolved of his responsibility to maintain his own daughter. 6. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. This petition, being devoid of any merit is, hereby, dismissed. The stay petition also stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******