BERI, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Jaipur City, in a suit wherein he awarded a sum of Rs. 150/- per month by way of maintenance to a minor daughter payable by her putative father. 2. Asha Devi through her mother and next friend Smt. Shakuntla Devi instituted a suit claiming maintenance allowance in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month against Sagarmal Bengani. The allegations made by the plaintiff were that defendant-appellant Sagarmal, a man of considerable means, held out hopes and temptation to Smt. Shakutla some time in 1944, as a result of which Smt. Shakuntla, although a married woman, started living with Sagarmal some times at Jaipur and some times at Calcutta as his concubine. Sagarmal passed off Smt. Shakuntla as his wife on social occasions and took her out to clubs and social gatherings; So much so that even the people of Sagarmal's family, who were aware of this relationship, gave her a recognition as the wife of Sagarmal. The first conception of this relationship took place some time in 1949, but it miscarried. The second resulted in the birth of the plaintiff-respondent, Asha Devi, on the 5th May, 1950 at Jaipur. Around the time when Asha Devi was born and thereafter the affection of Sagarmal for Smt. Shakuntla abated and he started neglecting her, and by the time the suit came to be instituted in 1952 he had long abandoned her. Notices were exchanged between Sagarmal and Smt. Shakuntla but without any result. Asha Devi's case is that Sagarmal is one of the proprietors of M/s. Jeewanmal Chandanmal, a very big Marwari firm in Calcutta, which owns extensive business and Sagarmal also owns considerable landed properties in Calcutta and Ladhu, which yield him an income of about twenty five to thirty thousand rupees per month. Having regard to the position of the parties Asha Devi claimed that she was entitled to a maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month and made a total claim for Rs. 21,000/-for twenty one months' arrears. Asha Devi was permitted to sue as a pauper. The defendant-appellant Sagarmal entered appearance and submitted a written statement. He denied that Smt. Shakuntla ever lived as his wife, or conceived through him, or there was any mis-carriage as alleged by the plaintiff. He stoutly denied that he was the father of Asha Devi and therefore legally liable to maintain her or her mother. The receipt of the notices was, however, admitted but it was alleged that they were duly answered. Sagarmal admitted that he was one of the proprietors of M/s. Jeewanmal which owns movable as well as immovable properties. He disputed the estimate of income as given by the plaintiff without stating,in the written statement as to his approximate income. He repudiated the claim of Asha Devi for Rs. 1,000/- per month or for any amount. He submitted that the suit was instituted by the mother Shakuntla with a view to black-mail him. He alleged that a petition was made against him by Smt. Shakuntla before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta under sec. 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in June, 1950, but it was withdrawn in August, 1950 on an application by Smt. Shakuntla on ground that she had no cause of action against Sagarmal. Another petition was made against Sagarmal before the City Magistrate, Jaipur City under sec. 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in April 1951, which was dismissed after prolonged proceeding in November, 1952. In the meanwhile complaint was made by Moolchand, the husband of Smt. Shakuntla against Sagarmal under secs. 497 and 498 of the Indian Penal Code, which was also dismissed in August, 1952, and Sagarmal was discharged from that accusation. Smt. Shakuntla made another application to the Court of City Magistrate asking him to prosecute Sagarmal under sec. 173 of the Indian Penal Code the same was also rejected in November, 1951. Sagarmal contended that Smt. Shakuntla is a Brahmin by caste and governed by Hindu Law. Her marriage with Moolchand subsisted. Legally, therefore, Asha Devi is the daughter of Moolchand and can claim no maintenance if any, from him. He also pleaded that he was a Jain and was not bound by his personal law to maintain the plaintiff. He contested the territorial jurisdiction of the court. 3. Out of the rival contentions of the parties, the learned District Judge framed four issues which may be reproduced in the interest of exactitude: 1. (a) Whether the defendant lived with the plaintiff's mother in sexual relationship and passed her off as his wife O. P. (b) Whether Mst. Asha Devi was conceived during the relationship referred to in (a) and the defendant is her putative father? O. P.
(2.) IN case the reply to issue No. 1 (a) and (b) be in the affirmative, to what monthly maintenance the plaintiff is entitled and since when? O. P. Whether, in spite of subsisting marriage between Shakuntla Devi and Moolchand, Brahmin of Ratanpura, the plaintiff should not be deemed to have been begotten Moolchand? O. P. Whether the withdrawal of the mainten ance application on behalf of the plaintiff by Mst. Shakuntla Devi from the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate Calcutta, has any bearing on the present suit and if so, what ? D. Oral and documentary evidence was produced by the parties and the learned District Judge held that Sagarmal and Smt. Shakuntla cohabitted from 1946 to the beginning of 1950. He further found that Moolchand had no access to Smt. Shakuntla during the material period when Asha Devi could be conceived, while Sagarmal had, and, therefore, Asha Devi was the daughter of the adulterous relationship between Sagar Mal and Smt. Shakuntla. He expressed the opinion that under the orthodex Hindu Law there was no provision for the maintenance of illegitimate daughters but under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (Act No. 78 of 1956) sec. 20 sub-sec. (2) an illegitimate child can claim maintenance from his father so long as he is a minor. He, therefore, found that from 22nd December, 1956, when this new Act came into force, Asha Devi was entitled to maintenance. He further found that Sagarmal was a rich person, who admitted his income being about 2,000/- per month and in this view of the matter, he expressed the opinion that a sum of Rs. 150/- per month would be reasonable maintenance for Asha Devi till she attains the age of 18 years or her marriage whichever is earlier. He awarded full costs to Asha Devi on account of the conduct of Sagarmal. Against this judgment and decree Sagarmal has now come up in appeal. 4. The learned Advocate General appearing for the appellant Sagarmal submitted that the plaintiff Asha Devi in this case completely failed to prove non-access of Moolchand to Smt. Shakuntla, and thus the presumption under sec. 112 of the Indian Evidence Act remained unrebutted. He next contended that it was not proved that Sagarmal is the putative father of Asha Devi, and lastly, at any rate, the maintenance awarded is excessive. Mr. Chatterji, the learned counsel appearing for Asha Devi supported the judgment of the trial Court. Non-accessthe law touching the subject is contained in sec. 112 of the Indian Evidence Act which reads as follows: " The fact that any 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, the mother remaining unmarried, shall be con clusive 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 begotton. " This section has for its foundation the English rule of law that a child born in wedlock should be presumed to be the child of the man who was then the husband of the mother unless it is shown that he had no access to the mother at the time of conception. There is obviously an initial presumption in favour of legitimacy, but it is capable of being rebutted by showing non-access during the material period. The first submission in this connection made by the learned Advocate General was that to determine the material period of non-access one has to ascertain the accepted period of gestation He placed strong reliance on an un-reported decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Mahendra Manill Nanavati V. Sushilal Nanavati ( Civil Appeal No. 166 of 1963,decided on 18th March, 1964 ), wherein their Lordships were determining the question whether the child born to the respondent in that case on August 27, 1947, could be the child of the petitioner, who, on the finding of Courts below did not co-habit with the respondent earlier than March 10, 1947. Counting both the days, i. e. March 10 and August 27, the total period between these dates came to 171 days. The child born to the respondent in the case was a normal delivery. In this context their Lordships observed, "that the usual period of gestation from the date of the first coitus is between 265 and 270 days and that delivery is expected in about 280 days from the first day of the menstruation period a woman conceiving a child". For the purposes of that case their Lordships made the observations aforesaid. There the question was whether a normal child could be delivered within 171 days of the coitus. The period of gestation in a given case cannot be stated with absolute exactitude. Taylor in his Principle and practice of Medical Jurisprudence Eleventh Edition, Vol. II, at page 30, in this connection has made the following observations "the usually accepted average is 280 days, which is the period used in clinical tables provided for estimating the date of term. The principal difficulty in the way of exact determination is the impossibility of fixing the exact moment of impregnation. Ovulation occurs about 14 days before the onset of the ensuing menstrual period, but it is subject to many influences and there are cases where it has seemingly occurred on almost any day in the intermenstrual cycle. . . . . . . . . . . . We have no means of knowing the exact moment of the union of the ovum and spermatozoon which is the beginning of pregnancy. " Modi in his text book of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, Fourteenth Edition, at pages 327 and 328 in this connection observes "sometimes, cases of disputed legitimacy arise in which it is necessary to determine how long gestation may be prolonged. In India, England and the United States of America the law does not lay down any fixed limit of gestation. Each case is decided on its own merits. The learned author has noticed cases wherein period of gestation has been 315 days, 324 days, 331 days and 334 days. He has also referred to the House of Lords case where the period has been computed at 360 days. Modi also, however, has expressed the opinion from experience that the average period is 280 days, or 40 weeks or 10 lunar months. In Chilukuri Venkateswarlu vs. Chilukuri Venkatanarayana (1) where the plaintiff was admittedly born on 16th October, 1943, their Lordships observed that the must have been conceived some times towards the later part of December, 1942 or beginning of January, 1943. This approximately works out to 300 days, which their Lordships took to be the normal period of gestation. It would be, therefore, safe in the case before us to take the period of gestation between 280 to 300 days in order to determine whether the husband of Shakuntla had or had not access to his wife. It is admitted on all hands that Asha Devi was born 5th May, 1950. Therefore, the material period for access for the purposes of this case may be taken to be any time between the middle of July to middle of August, 1949. The learned Advocate General strenuously urged that even Smt. Shankuntla herself has not said in so many words that Moolchand had no access to her during the material period when Asha Devi could be begotten. The evidence of Moolchand and Janabai likewise suffer from a similar infirmity and, in this view of the matter, it should be held that the presumption has not been rebutted. This necessitates a close examination of the oral and documentary evidence led in connection with non-access by the parties. Smt. Shakuntla Devi has stated that when she was 9 years of age she lost her mother, and she was brought up by her father's sister Jana Bai in Ramganj Bazar, Jaipur. She was married to Moolchand, a cultivator of Ratanpura in or about the year 1942, and she lived with him for one year. Then she returned to Jaipur, and there the driver of Bhanwarji Nikotiya introduced her to Sagarmal. Sagarmal took her to his friend's house in Jadiyon-ka-Rasta, Jaipur, and there she lived with him in adulterous relationship tor about five or six months. Thereafter Sagarmal took her to Calcutta and put her up for 15 days in Majestic Hotel and then shifted her in one of his mansions called Princess Mansion in Park Street, Middleton Road. It has 24 flats. First he put her in flat No. 20 and then in flat No. 13. Sagarmal used to live with her. She has stated that she lived with him for about 5 to 6 years in Calcutta and her expenses were borne by Sagarmal, which ran to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-a month. He impregnated her but she mis-carried about 2 or 3 months of pregnancy. Some 2 or 3 years after she again conceived and when the female child was of 2 or 3 months within her she returned to Jaipur and started living in Ladiwalon's house situate in Johari Bazar, Jaipur. This house Sagarmal had taken on rent for her. A daughter was born to her. She named her Asha Devi. She says that she was paid Rs. 5000/- by Sagarmal before he left her saying that she should not quarrel with him. In Calcutta, she stated, Sagarmal used to take her around in parties and to clubs and used to introduce her as his wife. Even Sagarmal's mother Smt. Bhonri Devi, who gave her some gold ornaments, used to visit her. He got himself photographed with her which photograph she had produced and is marked Ex. 5. Even Sagarmal's relation Dhanraj Kanotia wrote to her and she had produced a letter (Ex. 6 ). That her husband Moolchand after about a year and a half of her disappearing with Sagarmal married another wife. She has stated that from the time she lived with Sagarmal she never saw Moolchand, nor she had sexual relation with any other person. She conceived Asha Devi in flat No. 13, Princes Mansion, Calcutta, when she was Sagarmal's concubine. She has further categorically stated: Ftl vlsz esa ym+dh isv esa vkbz esjk ewypun ;k vksj fdlh ls rkyyqd ugh jgka** In cross-examination she has deposed that the hopes held out by Sagarmal were that he would marry her although he had a living wife but he had wealth and he could also marry her. She had lots of letters received from Sagarmal but when she was living in Johari Bazar Sagarmal took away all those letters along with his clothes. Sagarmal used to bring her to Jaipur whenever he had to visit Ladnu. In Calcutta Sagarmal lived with his mother and wife in No. 12 Kothi at Dharmtala Road, near Government Press. When she lived in Calcutta she had four servants, whose names she has given, besides a maid-servant, a Darban, a lift-man, Malis, etc. She diswoned the receipt of the telegram alleged by Sagar Mal to have been received by her from some stranger from Alwar. She, however, admitted having seen Moolchand once when she was living in the house of Ladiwala, Jaipur. He had come only one day and this was for the first time after she lived with him in Ratanpura. Moolchand talked to Sagarmal. He did not talk to her. She had no quarel with him. Moolchand, the husband of Smt. Shakuntla Devi. , has stated that his wife when she was living in Jaipur ran away with Seth Sagarmal of Ladnu and from that time till today (the date of his deposition being 6th September, 1954) he had no relation with her as of man and wife. Asha Devi was not born of him. He did not make any report about this in the police because he was a poor man. He had learnt from Jana Bai 8 or 9 months after Shakuntla had gone away with Sagarmal. He had gone with his father-in-law Ram Sahai to the house of Smt. Shakuntla, who had also shown him the place, and he accompanied him to Smt. Shakuntla's place. He asked her to accompany him. She replied that the like of him polish her shoes. He left her after hearing this. He instituted a criminal complaint against Sagarmal who fell at his feet. Sagarmal promised to give him Rs. 10,000/- but did not pay him even a four anna bit, and the case came to an end. The other witness whose evidence may be referred to in this connection is Smt. Jana Bai, the aged aunt of Smt. Shakuntla, who had brought her up. She stated that some time in 1943, calculated from the date of her statement, Smt. Shakuntla was married to Moolchand of Ratanpura. For about a year and a half or two she kept on visiting Ratanpura and thereafter she went away with Sagarmal to Calcutta. Thereafter Moolchand had no contact vkuk tkuk with her, nor she had any relationship of a man and a woman (meaning thereby cohabitation) with Mool Chand. Jana Bai lived in Calcutta for one year with Smt. Shakuntla where Sagar Mal also used to live. Sagarmal had kept Shakuntla as his concubine and after this Shakuntla had had no relation with any other man. Shakuntla had lived with her for 15 days after Sagarmal's 'darban' had left her. Thereafter Sagarmal procured a house at the rate of Rs. 60/-per month called Ladiwalan's house in Johari Bazar for Shakuntla. She also went in that house to live with her; after some days Sagar Mal also came there. He used to take his meals and spend his nights there. Thus Sagarmal lived there in the 'haveli' for 2-3 months and thereafter he went away. We might make a pointed reference to the documentary evidence which has an important bearing on the subject of the residence of Shakuntla at Jaipur. There is a rent receipt on record (Ex. 4) dated 30th August, 1949 for the period of 27th August, 1949 to 26th September, 1949, for the Ladiwalon's House. This has been proved by Banshidhar (PW. 1) Ex. 3 which is dated 20-9-1949, is another receipt for the rent of the same house and proved by the same witness. There is a letter on record (Ex. 6), which is written by Dhanraj Kanotia a relation of Sagarmal and addressed to Shakuntla and it is dated 8th August, 1949, in which a reference has been made to Sagarmal's residence with Shakuntla in Jaipur. This is the material evidence on record. The learned Advocate General urged that it was some time in July, 1949 that Shakuntla came from Calcutta to Jaipur. She spent 15 days with her aunt Smt. Jana Bai and thereafter she shifted to the Ladiwalon's house in Johari Bazar. Shakuntla, urged the learned counsel, has evidently spoken a lie when she said that she reached Jaipur when she was pregnant with a child of 2 or 3 months' duration, placing thereby the conception of Ashadevi at Calcutta. The further argument was that on Moolchand's own showing he visited Shakuntla at Ladliwalon's house more than, once, and thus not only Shakuntla has failed to specify non-access to Moolchand but there is positive evidence to indicate that Moolchand had had access to her. At this point it will be profitable to examine the true legal import of the expression "access". In Karapaya Servai vs. Moyandi (2), their Lordships of the Privy Council were satisfied in regard to the word "access" that the word means more than opportunity to intercourse. " In Kasi Ammal vs. Ramaswami Reddiar (3), a learned Judge of the Madras High Court observed that the word 'access' in sec. 112 does not mean actual sexual intercourse and one method of proving this is to establish that the husband had no intercourse with the woman. Then he need not prove that he had no opportunity of intercourse. In view of this authoritative pronouncement with regard to the connotation of the word "access", we have no difficulty in rejecting the contention of the learned Advocate General that Shakuntla, Moolchand and Jana Bai have not stated specifically that Shakuntla had no access to Moolchand. If these witnesses have stated as they undoubtedly have, that Shakuntla had no intercourse with Moolchand then it is not incumbent upon Shakuntla to further prove that she had no opportunity of an intercourse. If she proves that she had no actual co-habitation with Moolchand during the period, she discharges the burden of proving non-access within the meaning of sec. 112. Shakuntala, Moolchand and Smt. Jana Bai, as we have noticed earlier, have categorically deposed that she had no sexual relationship with anybody other than Sagarmal ever since she left her husband. It is, therefore, futile to suggest that there is no evidence given by the respondent with regard to non-access. Let us now examine as to the admitted visit of Moolchand to the Ladi-walon's house where Shakuntla lived. Shakuntla has stated that after she had left him at Ratanpura she saw her husband at Ladiwalon's house one day. Moolchand has stated that he visited Ladiwalon's house with his father-in-law to meet Shakuntla, who had given him the whereabouts of her house. In the course of that meeting when he asked her to accompany him she is reported to have said that the like of him polished her shoes. Thereafter he never tried to call on Shakuntla again. The question is whether a meeting of this kind can be characterised as "access" within the meaning of that expression as contained in sec. 112 of the Indian Evidence Act. The answer to the question must, in our opinion, be in the negative. It appears to us that whatever may have been the purpose of Moolchand's visit to Ladiwalon's house in Jaipur he was shown undiluted contempt by Shakuntla and this negatives any suggestion that it was an opportunity to have an intercourse. An unfriendly meeting of that kind is completely destructive of the hypothesis. 13. We are inclined to agree that Shakuntla has exaggerated or confused her case when she states that she was pregnant with Asha Devi and the pregnancy was 2, 3 months duration when she came to Jaipur. On the law of averages and after we have taken the average period of 280 to 300 days as the period of gestation, Asha Devi appears to us to have been conceived some time in the middle of July, 1949, by which time, according to her evidence and the rent receipt, which we have noticed earlier, she had come to occupy Ladiwalon's house in Jaipur. Although we shall notice this point again, but we might mention that when Shakuntla lived in Ladiwalon's house at Jaipur we are satisfied that Sagarmal did live with her in that house and further in view of the evidence discussed above Moolchand had no access to her in the sense of having such an opportunity which could result in sexual intercourse. The result of the aforesaid discussion on the first point, therefore, is that Shakuntla and Moolchand both have categorically stated they had had no access during the material period when Asha Devi could have been begotten, and we are satisfied that their evidence on this point is reliable, and we hold accordingly that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving the non-access and thereby rebutting the presumption created by sec. 112 of the Indian Evidence Act.
(3.) THE next argument of the learned Advocate General is that Sagarmal is not the putative father of Asha Devi. In this connection, it will be relevant to briefly review the statement of Sagarmal and the evidence led by him. Sagarmal's examination-in-chief makes a reference to the previous litigation between him on the one hand and Shakuntla and Moolchand on the other. He has repudiated that he took any house in Jaipur for Shakuntla either Deputy Narain's house or Ladiwalon's house. He disowned having taken Shakuntla to Calcutta or called her or kept her in Princes Mansion. According to him, it was Sobhagmal alias Lallu who had introduced Shakuntla Devi to him. Sobhagmal used to visit her. In 1949 a month or two after Holi, states Sagarmal that his wife had become ill and, therefore, he had gone away to Ladnu. He remained in Ladnu for about 7 or 8 months and during that period he never visited either Calcutta or Jaipur on account of the serious illness of his wife. In his cross-examination, however, he has admitted that he had sexual connection, with Shakuntladevi three or four times,but he does not remember what he paid her. He has stated that she was never in his keeping. Before the City Magistrate, however, he had filed a reply in answer to the petition by Shakuntla Devi under sec. 488 Cr. P. C. , which included the words, "access to the applicant at the time when the child in question could have been conceived was not confined to the opposite party alone. " He has admitted that his personal monthly income may be Rs. 2,000/- a month. He has professed that the only woman he loved was his wife. He has stated that he had no knowledge with regard to the birth of Asha Devi. He has completely dis-owned even knowing Jana Bai or that Jana Bai had lived with Shakuntla. When confronted with the photograph, he said that he was unable to say that the lady shown in the photograph (Ex. 5) was Shakuntla Devi or not, and then he adds that even on comparing the lady in the photograph (Ex. 5) with Shakuntla there are many differences. What these differences were he was unable to specify. What is still more remarkable is that when questioned about his own photograph which is Ex. 5 he evaded the question by saying as to what was the difference between himself and the man in Ex. 5. The evidence that he has led is of Sobhagmal, who is D. W. 6. He has stated the Shakuntla used to be his keep from the year 1946 to 1950 and he had taken a house for her in Marquis Street, Calcutta. He has added that Shakuntla never lived in Princess Mansion. She was not the mistress of Sagarmal. He admits that his character from the age of 18 years has been bad. He admits hat he was having illicit connection with many women but he was unable to name even a single one or state their number. He had left Shakuntla in January, 1950. He was unable to recall that there was a case between Sagarmal and Shakuntla. Later, however, he owns his statement in that case ( Ex. 8 A to B ) to the effect that Shakuntla was also the mistress of Sagarmal but adds that it is false to say that Shakuntla was the mistress of Sagarmal also. He states that when he had gone away to the United States of America for about 8 months he had left Shakuntla in Calcutta in the care of servants, whose names he was unable to give. The impression which the evidence of Sagarmal has left on our mind is that this person has little or no respect for truth. In answer to the application under sec. 488 Cr. P. C. made by Shakuntla against him, the plea he had raised was that Shakuntla was not in his exclusive keeping. He had had the temerity to disown his photograph with that of Shakuntla and he had sought to pass on Shakuntla Devi as the concubine of Sobhagmal. With regard to Sobhagmal we have no hesitation in rejecting his evidence as utterly unreliable. The case which has been sought to be proved through this witness was not ever hinted at by Sagarmal in his written statement and seems to us to be a clear after-thought. On his own showing Sobhagmal is a person without scruples in regard to his sexual life. In order, therefore, to ascertain the truth we shall have to look elsewhere. With regard to the fact whether Sagarmal was or was not in Jaipur during the material period, namely, July, 1949, a reference might be made to a document (Ex. 6), a letter written by one of the relations of Sagarmal named Dhanraj Kanotia. While Sagarmal did not recognise his signatures, Sobhagmal did, and we have no doubt in our mind that this is a genuine letter,which was written in normal course of courteous correspondence. From this it appears that one of Sagarmal's relations treated Shakuntla with respect in as much as she was recognised even by the wife of author of this letter and they were on terms of mutual courtesy. Secondly, this letter proves beyond the shadow of doubt that atleast during a part of July and August 1949 Sagarmal was living with Shakuntla at Jaipur. This letter (Ex. 6) is dated 8-8-1949. It is in answer to an earlier letter presumably written by Shakuntla, and, therefore, we are led to the conclusion that Sagarmal was living with Shakuntla at Jaipur. The fact that Exs. 3 and 4, the rental receipts for the Ladiwalon's house, were issued in the name of Sagarmal, is not without considerable significance. It appears that the landlord looked to Sagarmal for rem, and the payment of rent was made by or on behalf of Sagarmal. These documents, in our opinion, conclude the fact that Sagarmal was living with Shakuntla at Jaipur in or about the month of July and August, 1949; that being the material period when Asha Devi could be begotten. Sobhagmal's claim that she was bis mistress is false. Admittedly a close friend and relation of Sagarmal, he is unable to give any details and conveniently forgets inconvenient facts. He has merely come to oblige Sagar Mal by taking upon himself the odium of Sagarmal's doings. As already stated Mool Chand, Shakuntla's husband had no access to her at that time in the sense of an opportunity of having an intercourse with her. The interview which Moolchand had with his wife at Jadiawalon-ki-Haveli, on which the learned Advocate General relies, was to our mind, a casual one and designed to tax Sagarmal with what he had done to his wife, rather than an occasion which could have provided or did provide any opportunity for intercourse to him with her. Besides having lived the kind of life which Shakuntla did as a mistress of Sagarmal, we find it impossible to believe that Moolchand, a cultivator could have been allowed any-where near her by Shakuntla as an acceptable mate for sexual life with her. We are, therefore, in agreement with the learned District Judge that Sagarmal is the putative father of Asha Devi. The last argument advanced by the learned Advocate General was that having regard to the course of litigation that has passed between the parties, it is abundantly clear that Shakuntla and Moolchand arc on a path of black-mail and have been fleecing this rich man Sagarmal by launching indiscriminate litigation against him and, therefore, in this view of the matter, a maintenance allowance to Asha Devi in the sum of Rs. 150/- per month is in any case excessive. He further argued that after all Shakuntla came from the lower strata of society being the wife of an ordinary cultivator and her daughter was not entitled to a sum of Rs. 150/-per month as maintenance. We have given our anxious consideration to these arguments, and in our opinion, both are without any force. In the first place, Sagarmal does not accept that at any point of time he gave any hush money to either Shakuntla or Moolchand. In fact his case has been that he had had three or four casual sexual connections with this woman and he does not remember what he paid her even then. In the face of this deposition it is futile for the learned counsel to advance the theory that Sargarmal is being bled by these unprincipled persons. In so far as the argument of the strata of society from which Smt. Shakuntla came, what the law envisages under sec. 23 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, is the status of the parties which includes the status of Sagarmal. While the claim of Smt. Shakuntla is that the monthly income of Sagarmal is 24 to 30 thousand rupees, Sagarmal has rest content by estimating his monthly income with an amount of Rs. 2,000/ -. Even if for the sake of argument we accept the lower figure of Sagarmal then too we find that a person earning Rs. 2,000/- per month, who has given a daughter to a concubine should not grudge a sum of Rs. 150/- per month only, until the daughter's age is of 18 years or she is married, whichever is earlier. In our opinion, the award of maintenance in the sum of Rs. 150/- per month cannot be described as excessive. This ground also, urged on behalf of the appellant, fails. No other argument was advanced before us. This appeal therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs. 1965 RLW 1 . ;