Deo Narayan Thanvi, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition against the order of the learned family judge, Udaipur dated 05.06.2008 whereby he directed the petitoner to pay a sum of Rs. 800/ - per month as maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. from the date of order.
(2.) IT is contented by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that this order has been passed on the basis of the affidavits filed by the respondent Smt. Anita and placed reliance upon the decision of karnataka high court delivered in the case of Smt. Cliannakha and Ors. v. Mahantappa reported in, 2006 (3) CCC 353 (Kar) wherein it has been held that evidence taken on affidavits is not fit into the definition of evidence as defined under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act. In the said case, the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was also decided on the affidavits. The impugned order in the said case was held to be illegal and the matter was remanded for fresh decision. The same is the situation in this case. The reason assigned in the said case is with regard to Section 3 of the Evidence Act, wherein evidence has been defined dealing with interpretation clause, which is as under. Evidence. - "Evidence" means and includes - (1) all statements which the court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses in relation to matters of fact under inquiry, such statements are called oral evidence; (2) all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court, such documents are called documentary evidence.
(3.) IT states that evidence is either oral or documentary. Oral evidence is statement given in the court and documentary evidence means documents filed in the court including electronic record produced in the court.;