Venkataramana Rao, J.
1. The only question for decision, in this second appeal is whether a person, who is not possessed of any joint family property, is under any obligation under the Hindu law to maintain his adult illegitimate son. Both the lower Courts seem to have assumed that the father is bound to maintain his, illegitimate son during his own lifetime. It seems to me that this assumption is wrong. It, is a well settled principle of Hindu law that where the father is not possessed of any joint family property, he is under no personal obligation to maintain his, legitimate son and the latter has no claim over the separate property of his father--vide Ammakannu v. Appu I.L.R.(1887) Mad. 91. An illegitimate son cannot claim higher rights than the legitimate son and the same principle ought to apply to him. Mr. M. Natesa Aiyar who appears for Mr. V. Ramaswami Aiyar has not been able to cite any authority in sup- port of the view taken by the lower Court. It seems to me therefore that the decree of the lower Court awarding maintenance to the respondent must be set aside. There is no doubt that the respondent is the illegitimate son, and the conduct of the appellant is very reprehensible. After living for thirty years with the mother of the respondent and his sisters, he has turned them adrift. This is not a case in which though the appellant has succeeded, I should give' him any costs; in fact in the lower Courts it does not appear to have been seriously contested that the respondent was not entitled to any maintenance. In these circumstances I direct each party to bear his own costs in this Court and in the lower appellate Court. The order as to costs made by the first Court will stand.
2. Leave to appeal is refused.