JUDGMENT

A. K. PARICHHA, J. : This is a defendants’ appeal against the judgment and decree of learned District Judge, Koraput in MAT Appeal No.1 of 2004 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Koraput in O.S. No.19 of 2002.

2. The present respondents, as plaintiffs, filed the above noted suit asking for maintenance of Rs.5,000/- from the present appellant No.1 on the ground that they are the wife and daughter of appellant No.1 and that appellant No.1 neglected to maintain them and treated them with cruelty. Defendant No.1 in his written statement denied any relationship with the plaintiffs and further pleaded that the present appellant No.2 is his legally married wife whom he married in the year 1977. He thus denied his liabil¬ity to pay maintenance to the plaintiff-respondents. Learned trial Court framed six issues, accepted evidence from the parties and on consideration of the same held that the plaintiff No.1 is not the legally married wife of defendant No.1 and therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance. The Court further held that the plaintiff No.2 is the illegitimate child of defendant No.1 and awarded maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month in favour of plain¬tiff No.2. Defendants filed appeal against that judgment, but learned appellate Court confirmed the trial Court’s judgment and decree. Therefore, the present appeal has been preferred.

3. The following substantial question of law was formulat¬ed for consideration in this appeal.

“Whether the learned courts below were legally justified in relying on the contents of birth register, Ext.1, when admittedly the information to the registering authority regarding the pater¬nity of the child had been supplied by the mother-respondent No.1 and not by the father-appellant No.1 ?

4. Mr. Ganeswar Rath, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that even though the birth register, Ext.1 was marked as an exhibit without objection, yet the contents of this document cannot raise any presumption that the appellant No.1 is the father of respondent No.2 because the document was prepared basing on the information supplied by the mother, re¬spondent No.1, who is a highly interested person. He submitted that learned Courts below committed legal error in utilizing the contents of this Ext.1 in reaching the conclusion that appellant No.1 is the father of respondent No.2. In support of his conten¬tion, Mr. Rath relied on the cases of Thakur Prasad v. Mt. Goda¬vari Devi, 52 Cr.L.J., 684, S. Mahadeva Rao v. Yesoda Bai, AIR 1962 Madras 141; Sanatan Behera v. Anjali Behera and another, 2002(Supp.) OLR 676, Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Narmada Agarwalla and others, AIR 1993 Orissa 103.

5. Mr. P. K. Rath, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, states that the birth certificate, Ext.1 was marked as exhibit without objection and therefore, the entire contents of the document were admissible and the learned Courts below did not commit any error in relying on the contents of this document. In support of this contention, he relied on the cases of R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami, 97(2004) CLT 647 (SC), Smt. Dayamathi Bai v. K.M. Shaffi, 98 (2004) CLT 624 (SC), Bhagyarathi Das and another v. Agadhu Charan Das, 62(1986) CLT 298 and Budhi Mahal and others v. Gan¬gadhar Das and others, 46(1978) CLT, 287. Mr. Rath further argued that the Courts below did not blindly rely on the contents of Ext.1, but also considered the oral and other documentary evi¬dence to decide the paternity of respondent No.2. He submits that when the concurrent findings of the Courts below are based on evidence and prudent reasoning, it is not open to the Court of Second Appeal to upset such finding.

6. Admittedly, the birth certificate, Ext.1, was marked as exhibit without any objection. Now the plea of the appellants is that the contents of this document should not have been relied when the appellant No.1 had not given t