1. The petitioner is a member of the dancing girl community and the respondent a Nattukottai Chetti. They apparently went through some form of marriage, and as the respondent afterwards abandoned and neglected the petitioner, she was obliged to file a petition under Section 488, Criminal P.C., before the Divisional Magistrate of Devakottah for maintenance for herself and for the son of the union. The Magistrate dismissed the application as far as the petitioner was concerned on the ground that though she had been married to the respondent she had not proved that she had remained chaste from the date when the respondent had abandoned her. He found that the son of the petitioner was also the son of the respondent and awarded him a maintenance of Rs. 25 a month. The petitioner has filed this revision petition on the ground that the Magistrate dismissed the application as regards herself for very improper reasons and that in view of the fact that the respondent was a very wealthy man, the maintenance of Rs. 25 for the son was inadequate. Although the petitioner went through some form of marriage with the respondent, I am very doubtful whether a Nattukottai Chetti can be legally married to a girl of the dancing girl community. This question has been raised in the civil suit now pending which has been filed by the respondent (O.S. No. 33 of 1942); and so I do not think that I should interfere in revision with the dismissal of her claim, even though it was wrong for the Magistrate to consider that she was bound to prove that she had been chaste. The adjudication of her rights will have to a wait the result of the civil litigation. The respondent's learned advocate has said that the respondent is as anxious as the petitioner to have the litigation disposed of speedily.
2. If the petitioner and the respondent were legally married and the respondent is as wealthy as the petitioner says he is, then I think that Rs. 25 would be somewhat inadequate; but if they were not legally married, the Rs. 25 is a very liberal allowance. In any event, the boy is being brought up by his mother and it would be rather absurd if she adopted a standard of living for him which she could not adopt for herself. I do not think therefore that the rate of maintenance fixed necessitates any revision by this Court. The petition is dismissed.