1 The illegitimate child of the respondent is the revision petitioner. The short question for consideration is whether the presumption under S.112 of the Evidence Act is rebuttable and whether that presumption will always stand in the way of an illegitimate child claiming maintenance from the putative father.

2The revision petitioner, a minor child by name Sivadasan, was born to Sreemathi, who had a former husband by name Sankaranarayanan. Sankaranarayanan married Sreemathi in 1974. The allegation is that after a few months of the marriage, Sankaranarayanan left Sreemathi and thereafter he was not heard of and he had no access to her. The further allegation is that subsequently the respondent Govindan alias Unnikurup developed intimacy with Sreemathi and they were living like husband and wife at the residence of the respondent. In that alliance, Sreemathi became pregnant and the revision petitioner was born. Sreemathi for herself and on behalf of her minor son filed MC 106 of 1978 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tirur, under S.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for maintenance.

3On the side of the petitioners, four witnesses were examined and 13 docum