JUDGMENT A. K. PARICHHA, J. — Opp.Party No.1 claiming herself to be the legally married wife and opp.party No.2 as the minor daughter of the petitioner filed an application under Section 125, Crimi¬nal Procedure Code (in short, “Cr.P.C.”) before the learned S.D.J.M., Phulbani claiming a maintenance of Rs.600/- per month for opp.party No.2. In that petition the opp.parties claimed that the marriage of opp.party No.1 with petitioner was solemnized on 20th of February, 1980 in Cuttack Chandi Temple at Cuttack and opp.party No.2 was born out of the said wedlock on 27.2.1983. They alleged that the petitioner neglected to maintain them and finally deserted them with effect from 15th June, 1985 and is not paying anything for their maintenance. Opp.Party No.1 indicated that though she is employed in the Telephone Department, her income is not sufficient to maintain the minor daughter-opp.party No.2 and so the petitioner, who is the father of opp.party No.2, should pay maintenance to opp.party No.2. 2. The petitioner filed objection to the application for maintenance of opp.parties disputing the marriage with opp.party No.1 and the paternity of opp.party No.2. He alleged that opp.party No.1 was initially married to one Sameswara Kanhar and opp.party No.2 was born out of their wedlock. He also alleged that opp.party No.1 is a lady of immoral character and had affair with Bidyadhar Behera, whom he described as her husband in a criminal proceeding lodged by her in 1997. He also alleged that at present opp.party No.1 is enjoying her conjugal life with one Manohar Sahu. With the aforesaid denial and allegations, the petitioner prayed for dismissal of the claim of maintenance of opp.parties. 3. Learned S.D.J.M. after considering the evidence led by the parties held that opp.party No.1 is the wife and opp.party No.2 is the daughter of the petitioner and by order dated 3.3.2000 he awarded a maintenance @ Rs.400/- per month to opp.party No.2 from the date of filing of the application. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner filed a revision applica¬tion before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Phulbani vide CRP No.12 of 2000. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner filed a revision applica¬tion before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Phulbani vide CRP No.12 of 2000. The said revision having been dismissed, the petitioner has come up with the present application under Sec.482, Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the order of main¬tenance passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Phulbani under Annexure-3 and the order passed by the learned District Judge & Sessions, Judge, Phulbani in the criminal revision under Annexure-4. 4. Mr. S. K. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order in the M.C. No.66 of 1997 was passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Phulbani without affording proper opportun¬ity to the petitioner to adduce his evidence and without hearing his argument. He submits that the evidence and circumstances available on record were also not properly taken into considera¬tion while passing the order and some official documents and admissions of opp.party No.1, which indicated that opp.party No.1 was not married to the petitioner, but was married to other per¬sons, were totally ignored and conclusions were drawn in arbitr¬ary manner. According to him, the petitioner raised all these points before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Phulbani in the revision, but without seriously considering the conten¬tions and without answering the questions raised, a cryptic order was passed by simply confirming the order of maintenance passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Phulbani. He submits that the learned District & Sessions Judge, Phulbani also exercised his jurisdic¬tion with material irregularity by passing orders regarding execution of the arrear maintenance, though it was clearly beyond the scope and power of the revisional Court. The essence of the submission of Mr. Dash is that both the Courts below while passing the impugned orders acted with material irregularity and drew conclusions, which are contrary to the materials on record. 5. Mr. J. Panda, learned counsel for opp.parties, on the other hand, while supporting the impugned orders submitted that adequate opportunity was given by the learned S.D.J.M., Phulbani to the petitioner to adduce his evidence and offer his argument. He submitted that after duly considering the oral and documentary evidence of the parties, the Court passed the impugned order awarding maintenance to opp.party No.2. Mr. Panda further submit¬ted that learned District & Sessions Judge, Phulbani rightly confirmed the order of maintenance as there was no legal error or perversity in the order of learned S.D.J.M., Phulbani. He submitted that after duly considering the oral and documentary evidence of the parties, the Court passed the impugned order awarding maintenance to opp.party No.2. Mr. Panda further submit¬ted that learned District & Sessions Judge, Phulbani rightly confirmed the order of maintenance as there was no legal error or perversity in the order of learned S.D.J.M., Phulbani. He also challenged the maintainability of the present petition u/s 482, Cr.P.C. on the plea that the petitioner after exhausting the revisional forum before the learned District & Sessional Judge, Phulbani cannot approach the High Court in view of the bar provided under Section 397 (3) of the Cr.P.C. 6. In view of the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the following points require consideration. (i) Whether a petition u/s. 482, Cr.P.C. is maintainable after a party has exhausted the revisional forum before the District & Sessions Judge ? (ii) Whether adequate opportunity was given to the petitioner to adduce evidence and whether his argument was heard ? (iii) Whether evidence adduced by the parties were properly considered while passing the impugned orders ? (iv) Whether the Courts below acted with material irregularity or abused the process of the Court ? 7. Learned counsel for opp.parties has challenged the maintainability of the present proceedings citing the bar provid¬ed under Section 397 (3) of Cr. P.C. The sub-section reads as follows : “397 Calling for records to exercise powers of revision-(1) xxx xxx xxx (2) xxx xxx xxx (3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.” This provision thus clearly bars a second revision by the same person. Admittedly, in the present case the petitioner had preferred a revision against the order of maintenance before the learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani and after dismissal of the said revision, he has filed the present application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. No doubt a second revision on the same issue by the same person is barred u/s. 397 (3), Cr.P.C., but such bar cannot pro¬hibit a person from approaching the High Court in a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. in an appropriate case, because the power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is an inherent power of the High Court which can be invoked to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In the case of Krishnan and another v. Krishnaveni and another, ( AIR 1997 SC 987 ), the apex Court clarified the legal position observing thus : “Ordinarily, when revision has been barred by S.397 (3) of the Code, a person accused/complainant - cannot be allowed to take recourse to the revision to the High Court under S.397 (1) or under inherent powers of the High Court under S.482 of the Code since it may amount to circumvention of the provisions of S.397 (3) or S.397 (2) of the Code. However, when the High Court on examination of the record finds that there is grave miscar¬riage of justice or abuse of process of the Courts or the re¬quired statutory procedure has not been complied with or there is a failure of justice or order passed or sentence imposed by the Magistrate requires correction, it is but the duty of the High Court to have it corrected at the inception lest grave miscar¬riage of justice would ensue. It is, therefore, to meet the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process that the High Court is preserved with inherent power and would be justified, under such circumstances, to exercise the inherent power and in an appropriate case even revisional power under S.397 (1) read with S.401 of the Code.” So, there cannot be any doubt that in spite of the bar for a second revision under S.397 (3) of the Cr.P.C., yet the High Court can examine the matter under S.482, Cr.P.C. to prevent any miscarriage of justice. 8. 8. In the present case, opp.party No.1 is claiming that she is the legally married wife of the petitioner and that opp.party No.2 is born out of their wedlock. The petitioner is denying his marriage with opp.party No.1 and the paternity of opp.party No.2. He is claiming that opp.party No.1 was the wife of Sameswar Kanhar and opposite party No.2 is the daughter of that Sameswar Kanhar. He is also alleging that opposite party No.1 had affair with some other persons, namely, Bidyadhar Behera and Manmohan Sahu. To establish his stand the petitioner besides oral evidence produced documents such as certified copy of caste certificate issued by the Revenue Officer in favour of opp.party No.2, certified copy of the F.I.R. of G. Udayagiri P.S. case No.30 of 1997, one joint photograph of the petitioner and his friend. Claiming the photo Ext.2 as fake, he prayed the trial Court to send the photographs, Exts. 2 and A, to some expert to find out as to whether the photograph of the petitioner available on Ext.2 was subsequently imposed on Ext.2 by lifting it chemi¬cally from photograph, Ext.A. He also denied the hand-writings of the letters, Ext.4 series. Learned S.D.J.M., Phulbani did not pass any order on the issue of genuineness of photograph Ext.2 and did not give any finding or observation on the writings of Ext. 4 series. Ext B is the certified copy of the caste certifi¬cate granted by the Revenue Officer where opp.party No.2 has been described as the daughter of Sameswar Kanhar. Learned S.D.J.M. ignored the entries of this document by saying that the caste certificate was issued for the purpose of education of opp.party No.2. He also ignored the admission of P.Ws. 2 & 3 that in the School Register the name of the father of opp.party No.2 has been described as Sameswar Kanhar by saying that those witnesses clarified that name of Sameswar Kanhar was entered in the School Register as guardian of opp.party No.2. Nothing was indicated in the order about the FIR, Ext. C, wherein opp.party No.1 has described herself as the wife of one Bidyadhar Behera. It is worthwhile to note that opp.party No.1 also prayed before the Court for D.N.A. test of opp.party No.2 in a petition dated 22.2.1999 and the present petitioner filed objection to the same vide counter dated 8.3.1999. C, wherein opp.party No.1 has described herself as the wife of one Bidyadhar Behera. It is worthwhile to note that opp.party No.1 also prayed before the Court for D.N.A. test of opp.party No.2 in a petition dated 22.2.1999 and the present petitioner filed objection to the same vide counter dated 8.3.1999. Opp.party No.1 also filed a petition to send Ext.4 series to the hand-writing expert for examination and opinion and the prayer was allowed and she was directed to deposit Rs.10,000/-. In a subsequent petition dated 15.3.1999 opp.party No.1 requested the Court to send only 5 letters instead of all 11 letters, on the plea that she is not able to deposit Rs.10,000/-. The present petitioner filed a counter to that prayer. Learned S.D.J.M. did not pass any order on these issues of D.N.A. test and sending of letters to the hand-writing expert. All these omissions amount to material irregularity and are bound to affect the proper decision of the issues in question. 9. Petitioner has alleged that he was not given adequate opportunity to adduce evidence and his argument was also not heard. Order sheet dated 20.8.2000 of the Misc. Case No.66 of 1997 reads thus :- Advocate for the both parties are present. Advocate for opp.parties files a memo stating that he does not want to adduce further evidence of his side. Hence, evidence is closed. Call on 28.2.2000 for argument. But there is no memo of the learned Advocate available on record declining further evidence from the side of the opp.party (the present petitioner). Order sheet dated 29.2.2000 indicates that M.C. No.66 of 1997 was posted to 28.2.2000, but because that day was declared as holiday, the case was taken up on 29.2.2000. In the order sheet dated 29.2.2000 it has been mentioned that argument was heard on that day. But there is no hazira or step of the parties on record for that date. The petitioner’s plea is that without giving adequate opportunity to the present petition¬er for adducing evidence, the evidence was closed and without actually hearing argument of the petitioner judgment was deliv¬ered. But there is no hazira or step of the parties on record for that date. The petitioner’s plea is that without giving adequate opportunity to the present petition¬er for adducing evidence, the evidence was closed and without actually hearing argument of the petitioner judgment was deliv¬ered. It is necessary to indicate that the petitioner had taken the above noted plea in the revision before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Phulbani and had also indicated that the docu¬ments produced by him were not properly considered by the learned S.D.J.M., but the revisional order does not contain any answer to the submission. 9. In the case of Bakul Sahu v. Khedri Dei (ILR 1970 Cuttack series-420), this Court observed that when a woman comes forward with an allegation that a certain person is the father of her illegitimate child, it would be very unsafe to accept her testimony alone on the question of paternity without adequate corroboration. No doubt it is really difficult, and at times impossible to lead direct evidence of the actual fact of cohabi¬tation, but there should be proper corroboration to the statement of the mother, may be by cogent circumstantial evidence. It was also held that the burden lies with the mother to show that the child could have only been born to the alleged father under the circumstances of an exclusive relationship. The ratio laid down in the case of Bakuli Sahu (supra) was followed in the case of Bhaskar Sahu v. Janaki Stree (1974 C.L.R. 509) and in the case of Sarada Ranjan Hota v. Sangitarani Kuna Singh alias Hota, 62, (1986) C.L.T. 552. 10. Opp.party No.1 claims that opp.party No.2 is the daughter of the petitioner. The petitioner denies his relation¬ship with opp.party No.1 and paternity of opp.party No.2. In that situation the burden was squarely on the mother-opp.party No.1 to prove that opp.party No.2 is the daughter of none other than the petitioner. To establish her plea opp.party No.1 had produced some oral and documentary evidence and had prayed the Court for DNA test of opp.party No.2 and examination of Ext.4 series by hand-writing expert. No final order was passed by the Court on those prayers. The documents produced by the present petitioner were also not properly discussed. The genuineness of photograph Ext.2 had been challenged, but no finding was given on the said issue. No final order was passed by the Court on those prayers. The documents produced by the present petitioner were also not properly discussed. The genuineness of photograph Ext.2 had been challenged, but no finding was given on the said issue. Learned revisional Court also failed to notice these omissions and lacunae. 11. Ordinarily while considering of application under Sec¬tion 482, Cr.P.C., the Court is not to interfere with a finding of fact, but when the Court comes to the conclusion that there is no legal evidence to sustain a finding or when the order is passed in flagrant violation of certain norms of law and pro¬cedures and when non-interference with the impugned order would cause miscarriage of justice, then the Court would be entitled to interfere with a finding of fact. As has been indicated, the impugned orders Annexure-3 and the revisional order Annexure-4 were passed without properly considering the evidence of the parties and proper opportunity of adducing evidence was also not extended to the petitioner. In such avenue, allowing the order of learned S.D.J.M., Phulbani in Misc. Case No.66 of 1997 and the order of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Phulbani in C.R.P. No.12 of 2000 to stand would amount to abuse of the pro¬cess of law and would lead to miscarriage of justice. 12. In the result, therefore, CRLMC is allowed. The im¬pugned orders under Annexure- 3 & 4 are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned S.D.J.M., Phulbani for fresh disposal according to law taking note of the observation noted supra. CRLMC allowed.