Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

1. Heard Mr. R. Ali, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. A.R. Sikdar, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. The respondent as the first party had filed a petition against the petitioner in the Court of the learned SDJM (S), Barpeta, under Section 125, Cr PC, seeking maintenance for her minor daughter, whom she claimed to be the illegitimate child of the petitioner.

2. The said petition was registered as Case No. 254/07. The petitioner, who was arrayed as the second party, contested the said case by filing his written statement, where he denied that the respondent was his wife and also denied that her child was his illegitimate child.

3. The first party examined 3 (three) witnesses to prove her case. On the other hand, the second party adduced the evidence of 2 (two) witnesses.

4. On consideration of the materials on record, the learned Magistrate framed the following two issues for determination :-

1. Whether the daughter of the first party is the illegitimate daughter of the second party?

2. whether the daughter of the first party is entitled to get maintenance from the second party?

5. After considering the evidence adduced by both the sides, the learned Magistrate took the view that the evidence of both the witnesses of the second party were not trustworthy and could not be relied upon.

6. The learned Magistrate took the view that the minor child of the first party was born to the second party and recorded the finding that the second party i.e. the petitioner herein is the father of the daughter of the first party.

7. Regarding the second issue, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the daughter of the first party is entitled to get maintenance from the second party.

8. By the judgment and order dated 10.07.2009, the learned Magistrate directed the second party to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 600/- to the minor daughter of the first party from the date of filing of the maintenance petition.

9. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid judgment and order in revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta. The revision petition was registered as Criminal Motion Case No. 24/2009.

10. The learned revisional Court below by the judgment and order dated 16.09.2010, affirmed the order of maintenance passed by the learned Magistrate and dismissed the said revision petition.

11. The aforesaid judgment of the learned revisional Court below has been challenged by the petitioner before this Court by way of an application under Section 482, Cr PC.

12. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, there is no evidence at all to arrive at the finding that the petitioner had fathered the minor child of the respondent. He submits that in the absence of any such material, the learned Courts below were not justified to come to the conclusion that the petitioner is the father of the daughter of the respondent. Referring to a decision of this Court dated 20.01.2006 passed in Criminal Revision No. 708/2002, Smt. Alia Khatun v. Md. Khursed Ali, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the burden was on the first party to lead evidence in support of her claim. The first party had failed to discharge the burden which was on her and, therefore, the same has vitiated the judgments of both the Courts below. The Learned Counsel, therefore, prays for setting aside the aforesaid judgment.

13. Resisting the above submissions, Mr. Sikdar, Learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that this petition is not maintainable in as much as though the same has been filed under Section 482, Cr PC, the same for all intent and purpose is an attempt at second revision which is statutorily barred. On merits, Learned Counsel submits that a proceeding under Section 125, Cr PC being of a summary nature, the strict rules of evidence are not applicable in such a case. In support of his contention, the Learned Counsel relies on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Dukhtar Jaha