JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. J.P. Jha, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner alongwith Mr. Aishwarya Prakash, Advocate.

2. Heard Mr. Sudhanshu Shekhar Choudhary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party No.2.

3. Heard Mr. Arup Dey, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of Opposite Party-State.

4. The petitioner has preferred the present criminal revision application for setting aside the Judgment dated 23.02.2012 passed by the learned Principal District Judge-cum-Principal Judge (Family Court), Sahibganj in Maintenance Case No. 18 of 2006, whereby and whereunder the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the Opposite Party No.2-Rupa Devi was allowed and the petitioner was directed to pay monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.3,000/- per month to the Opposite Party No.2 with effect from the date of filing of the application i.e. 12.06.2006 by 10th day of each calendar month and he was further directed to pay the entire arrears of the maintenance allowance within 60 days from the date of the order, failing which the Opposite Party No.2 was given the right to recover the same through the process of law.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

5. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the proceeding in connection with grant of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C is a summary proceeding and strict rule of evidence will not apply to such proceedings. He submitted that the evidence of P.W.-1, the mother of the applicant, has not been taken into consideration by the learned court below and accordingly, the impugned judgment suffers from non-consideration of the material evidences on record.

6. Learned Senior counsel referred to the evidences of O.P.W.-5, the petitioner and O.P.W.-6, the Advocate who claimed to have prepared the affidavit dated 15.07.2002 of P.W.- 1 whose photocopy was filed before the learned court below as enclosure to evidence on affidavit of O.P.W.-6. He submitted that the said affidavit is related to the panchayati held on 15.07.2002 in which there was customary divorce called ‘chorachori’ between the petitioner and Opposite Party No.2. He also referred to Section 63(2) of the Evidence Act and submitted that in view of Section 63(2) of the Act, a photocopy of the affidavit is admissible in evidence as the original of the same was retained by the mother of the Opposite Party No.2.

7. Learned Senior counsel submitted that these aspects of the matter have not been properly considered by the learned court below and accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned court below is perverse and is fit to be set aside.

8. Learned Senior counsel, on instructions from the petitioner, also submitted that the petitioner has complied with the order dated 25.02.2013 passed by this Court relating to payment of the monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.2,000/- per month to the Opposite Party No.2 and the arrears thereof from the date of the impugned order dated 23.02.2012. But this submission was strongly denied by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2.

Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Parties

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the learned court below has considered all the materials on record including the evidence of P.W.-1 and has also discussed the photocopy of the so-called affidavit dated 15.07.2002 and has rejected the same by a well-reasoned judgment. He submitted that the affidavit was never produced in original before the learned court below and a photocopy of an affidavit cannot be said to be a document prepared by the same process. He submitted that the primary evidence has not been produced.

10. He also submitted that the marriage between the petitioner and the Opposite Party No.2 is admitted, but a plea has been taken by the petitioner that there was ‘chora-chori’ (divorce) between the petitioner and the Opposit