R. Sadasivam, J.
1. Petitioner, Kandavelu Mudaliar seeks to revise the order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, Madras directing him to pay a sum of Rs. 20 per month to his illegitimate child born through the respondent. The petitioner employed as a charge hand in Switch Gear department in Larson and Toubro-Limited, Madras, joined duty in Madras on 2nd January, 1965 after he was transferred from Bombay and was living with his father. The respondent, Rajammal, was working as a maid servant, in the house of the petitioner's father,. Kalyanasundara Mudaliar for three years till a year prior to this case. Both the -petitioner and the respondent became intimate and this resulted in the respondent Rajammal becoming pregnant. The respondent, Rajammal complained about it to the petitioner and he gave her some pills to abort the child, but the attempt was not successful. After the birth of the child, the petitioner refused to have anything to do with the respondent, Rajammal.
2. Rajammal examined herself and one Govindammal in support of her case; The petitioner, Kandavelu Mudaliar examined himself alone on his side. The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate did not accept the evidence of Govindammal who claims to have seen both the petitioner and the respondent together at Cinema theatre. But he believed the evidence of Rajammal and awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 20 per month to the child.
3. Thirumathi T. N. Anandanayaki appearing for the petitioner relied on the decision in Rev. C. R. Vedantachari v. Marie : AIR1926Mad1130 , where Wallace, J., has observed that in the case under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, where the question at issue is whether a certain man was the father of a certain child, it is prima facie improper to accept without corroboration, the mere statement on oath of the mother who asserts the paternity and that her evidence in such a case cannot but be highly interested, and it would be unreasonable and improper for any Court to act merely on her own word without some independent corroboration. The learned Judge went into the facts of that case in the revision and allowed it. If the decision proceeds on the facts of the particular case, no one could complain about it. It is possible that the learned Judge was not inclined to believe that the Reverend Vedantachari would have got an illegitimate child through the respondent, Marie in that case. There is no reference to Section 134 of the Evidence Act in the decision. Under Section 134 of the Evidence Act, no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact. It is true that it is not safe to act solely on the evidence of a woman who charges another with the paternity of her child. But it is not reasonable to expect corroboration in the shape of evidence of other witnesses. It is however legitimate to expect corroboration from the surrounding, circumstances. Ultimately, it is a question for the trial Court to find out whether the evidence of the woman could on the facts and circumstances of the case, be believed.
4. Thirumathi T. N. Anandanayaki took me through the evidence of Rajammal and Kandavelu Mudaliar. The evidence of Rajammal rings true. Kandavelu Mudaliar went to the extent of stating that there was no front room in his father's house. It is significant to note that no suggestion was made to Rajammal that there was no front room in the house of the petitioner's father in spite of her evidence that it was in the front room she and Kandavelu Mudaliar used to cohabit. The petitioner, Kandavelu Mudaliar is aged 28 years and he was married only subsequently on 2nd February, 1966. He claims to have given a complaint of theft against Rajammal, but he made no attempt to summon it and prove it. It is unnecessary in a revision case to deal elaborately with the oral evidence. There are sufficient surrounding circumstances which clearly corroborate the evidence of P.W. 1. I see no error of law or principle in the appreciation of the evidence of Rajammal by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate. I see no ground to interfere with the finding of fact given by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate that the child of Rajammal is the illegitimate child of Kandavelu Mudaliar. No objection could be taken to the quantum of maintenance viz., Rs. 20 per month having regard to the fact that Kandavelu Mudaliar is earning Rs. 350 per month. I see no ground to interfere with the order of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate awarding Rs. 20 per month as maintenance to the illegitimate child of the petitioner. The criminal revision petition is dismissed.