ORDER

The petitioner in this revision, who was the opposite party in the court below, has been directed to pay Rs. 20/- p.m. towards the maintenance of a child born to the opposite party, who was the petitioner in the court below. The said child, as found by the court below, was born to the opposite party through her union with the petitioner.

2. Mrs. Padhi, the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the court below was legally not justified in granting maintenance for the child as in the petition under Sec. 488, Criminal P.C. filed in the court below by the opposite party, maintenance was claimed for a female child, whereas the opposite party in her deposition in the court below claimed maintenance for a male child. Mrs. Padhi in this connection contended, that the relief given under Section 488, Criminal P.C. being of a civil nature the petition in the court below is in the nature of a plaint in a civil suit, and the claim made therein being for the maintenance of a famale child, the court was not legally competent to grant maintenance for a male child on the deposition of the opposite party in the court below. To support her above contention she cited the decis