SIBA PRASAD JENA Vs. PUSPANJALI JENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 27.04.2005 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No.21 of 2004 by the S.D.J.M., Khurda.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the present opposite party No.1 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance as against the petitioner before the S.D.J.M., Khurda in Crl.Misc. Case No.21 of 2004. The present petitioner, who was the opposite party in the said proceeding, appeared and filed his show cause. In the show cause he denied his marriage with opposite party No.1 and paternity of the child, i.e., opposite party No.2 in the instant revision. After recording the evidence of both the parties, a petition was filed on behalf of opposite party No.1 on 26.02.2004 to accept the birth certificate of the child as a public document and to mark as exhibit. Objection was filed on behalf of the present petitioner wherein the petitioner took a specific plea that since the document was not produced during the examination of the petitioner, the same cannot be marked as exhibit unless a chance is given to the petitioner to have his say against the same. After hearing the parties, learned S.D.J.M. by order dated 27.04.2005 allowed the prayer of opposite party No.1, accepted the document as a public document and marked it as Ext.1.

(3.) MR . Rath, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties contended that the birth certificate is a public document issued under Section 17 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. The document has its statutory value. The birth certificate being prepared by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, who is a public servant in due discharge of the duties under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, is a public document as prescribed under Section 74 of the Evidence Act. He further submitted that the burden lies on the petitioner himself to prove the allegation by leading cogent evidence. Therefore, the learned S.D.J.M. has committed no illegality or error of law calling for interference by this Court. Learned counsel for the opposite parties in support of his contention relied upon the cases of this Court in Smt. Pravasini Jena v. Smt. Mayarani Biswas, 100 (2005) CLT 501, and Ahalya Mangaraj v. State of Orissa, 2006 (II) OLR 411.