The main legal principle established in the judgment is that under Mohammadan law, illegitimacy is not recognized, and an illegitimate child is not entitled to claim maintenance from the assets of her putative father or from his heirs, apart from any rights conferred by statute.

1. The short point for decision in this Second Appeal is as to whether an illegitimate daughter of a Mohammadan is entitled to get maintenance from the assets of her putative father in the hands of his heirs.

2. The suit was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 60/- being the amount due as arrears of maintenance to the plaintiff and for costs from the defendants who are the heirs of the plaintiff's father, one C. P. Moosan Moopan. According to the plaintiff, her mother Kalliani was the wife of Moosan Moopan and the plaintiff was a child born of that union. The deceased Moosan Moopan was maintaining the minor plaintiff and her mother till his death in about September 1951. The first defendant is another wife, and the second defendant is a daughter of the said Moosan Moopan. Defendants 3 to 6 are the sisters of Moosan Moopan. The defendants, who are the heirs of Moosan Moopan, have not paid any maintenance to the plaintiff after the death of Moosan Moopan, though they are admittedly in possession of the self-acquired properties of Moosan Moopan. The plaintiff claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 15/- per month with a charge on the assets of her father, Moosan Moopan.

3. Defendants 3 to 6 remained exparte and defendants 1 and 2, the widow and daughter of Moosan Moopan alone contested the suit. The defence was (a) that the plaintiff's mother was not the wife of Moosan Moopan; (b) that the plaintiff was not a child born of Moosan Moopan and the plaintiff's mother; and (c) that the plaintiff is not entitled in law to claim maintenance from the assets of Moosan Moopan, as illegitimacy is not recognised in Mohammadan Law. Contentions were also raised regarding the rate of maintenance, claimed by the plaintiff.

4. Though the plaintiff's case was that her mother Kalliani was the legally wedded wife of the deceased Moosan Moopan, it appears to have been conceded before the trial Court on behalf of the plaintiff that the plaintiff's mother is not the legally wedded wife of Moosan Moopan, but the latter was only cohabiting with her till the time of his death. This concession has been recorded in Para.6 of the judgment of the trial Court.

5. But on the question as to whether the plaintiff was a child born of the union of Moosan Moopan and Kalliani, the trial Court held that Moosan Moopan, a Mohammadan was cohabiting with the plaintiff's mother, Kalliani who is a Harijan woman belonging to the Pulayan community and it also held that the plaintiff was a child born of that union.

Regarding the right of the plaintiff to claim maintenance the trial Court held:

"A Muslim father who has sufficient means, is under an obligation to maintain his legitimate or illegitimate children who are unable to maintain themselves."

Excepting this statement in the judgment, we do not get any further assistance in the judgment of the trial Court as to the principle on which the trial Court came to this conclusion.

6. After making the observations extracted above, the trial court considered the question of the rate of maintenance and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff's claim is a reasonable one and it also held that the defendants, who are in possession of the assets of Moosan Moopan are bound to pay maintenance to the plaintiff. In this view, the trial court decreed the suit as prayed for.

7. On appeal by defendants 1 and 2, the learned Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry, reversed the decree and judgment of the trial Court. Even before the learned judge the position that Kalliani was not the legally wedded wife, but only a concubine, was not challenged by the plaintiff as will be seen from the observation of the learned Subordinate Judge in Para.7 of his judgment to the effect:

"There is no dispute that the plaintiff's guardian who is a Harijan, is not the legally wedded wife, but

only a concubine".

The learned judge held that concubinage is not recognised under Mohammadan law and child born to a Muslim by a concubine is only an illegitimate child. The learned jud