JUDGMENT

S.K. MISHRA, J. — In this Revision, petitioner i.e. oppo¬site party in C.M.C. No.57 of 2001 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Karanjia has assailed the partly reversing judgment of the learned Adhoc Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Baripada in Criminal Revision No.3/37 of 2005/04.

2. Succinctly stated, case of the petitioner No.1 before the trial Court is that on 05.03.2000 as per caste custom, she married the opposite party i.e. the present petitioner and stayed with him for a period of seven to eight months in his house as his wife and out of their wedlock on 15.06.2001, she gave birth to petitioner No.2. It is further alleged that after the birth of petitioner No.2, her father i.e., the present petitioner and his family members started torturing petitioner No.1 both mental¬ly and physically and did not give her any food, cloth and medi¬cine. Finally on 15.07.2001, he drove her away. Thereafter, she is staying in her parents’ house along with her minor daughter. Her husband did not provide any maintenance to her or her minor daughter. Hence, she filed the application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Code” for brevity). Opposite party (present petitioner) i.e., the husband denied all the allegations made by the petitioner and further pleaded that petitioner No.1 is the wife of one Tribeni Patra and petitioner No.2 is the daughter of said Tribeni Patra. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the applica¬tion.

3. Petitioners examined four witnesses on their behalf while the opposite party examined three. Learned trial Court has held that petitioner No.1 is not the legally married wife of the opposite party. He came to such conclusion in view of the fact that on another occasion, petitioner has filed an application for maintenance against the said Tribeni Patra. She had also filed a complaint case against said Tribeni Patra. Disbelieving the birth certificate filed on behalf of the petitioner, learned trial Court has further held that the petitioners have not proved that the petitioner No.2 is the daughter of the opposite party. Ac¬cordingly, the trial Court dismissed the application for mainte¬nance.

This order was challenged in Criminal Revision No.337 of 2004. Learned Addl.Sessions Judge, though confirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court that the petitioner No.1 is not the legally married wife of opposite party No.1, overruled the order of the learned trial Court that petitioner No.2 is not the daughter of the opposite party. Accordingly, the revisional Court allowed the revision in part and directed that the opposite party should pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.500/- to petitioner No.2 from the date of the petition i.e. 30.07.2001. Such revers¬ing judgment of the learned Addl.Sessions Judge has been assailed in this revision.

4. The question that arises in this revision is the proba¬tive value of the birth certificate issued in favour of petitioner No.2.

5. Learned trial Court disbelieved Ext.2 i.e. the Birth Certificate of petitioner No.2, wherein the opposite party has been described as the father on the ground that such information was given to the authorities by petitioner No.1 i.e. the mother of the child. Learned counsel for the opposite party has supported the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. By relying on the reported decisions B. Mahadev Rao v. Yasoda Bai, AIR 1962 Madras 141; Smt. Lata Dei @ Primala and two others v. Bishnu Charan Panda, 1995 (II) OLR 569 and Smt. Pravasini Jena v. Smt. Mayarani Biswas, 100 (2005) C.L.T. 501, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that heavy onus lies on the petitioners to prove that petitioner No.2 is the daughter of the opposite party. In B. Mahadev Raos’ case, Hon’ble High Court of Madras observed that heavy burden is cast on the mother to prove paternity of the child in such cases. However, proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C. are summary in nature. A strict