JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is on behalf of the applicant/divorced husband against the impugned judgment dated 30th May, 2011 rendered in Miscellaneous Case No. 123 of 2006 by learned Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur, where under learned Family Court has rejected the prayer of the applicant/appellant herein for cancellation of maintenance awarded in Original Matrimonial Suit No. 40 of 1994 dated 4th February, 1998. 3. Parties had separated by virtue of decree of divorce passed by learned Court of 1st Additional District Judge at Jamshedpur on 4th February, 1998 in Original Matrimonial Suit No. 40 of 1994, wherein monthly maintenance of Rs.1,000/- only was allowed as alimony in favour of wife. 4. Miscellaneous case was preferred alleging that respondent had remarried with one Mahendra Sharma and had been staying at Bhilai and further a male child had been born out of the wedlock known as Manish Sharma. He alleged that this fact was concealed by the wife in Execution Case No. 1 of 1998, where she had sought execution of the order of maintenance. According to his knowledge, respondent-wife had remarried with Mahendra Sharma on 28th May, 1997 prior to the passing of the order on 4th February, 1998. 5. Opposite party/respondent herein appeared on notice and filed her rejoinder to the application completely denying all such allegations. She further stated that even in the execution case similar false allegation of remarriage of opposite party and a child born out of second marriage has been made by filing birth certificate. She had also asked for an inquiry under Section 340 Cr. P. C against this appellant. Therefore, there was no cause of action to maintain this miscellaneous case seeking cancellation of maintenance awarded. 6. Two witnesses, A.W.-1, Ashok Kumar Sharma, appellant himself and A.W.-2, Bhola Nath Mahato were examined in support of the case of the appellant. Opposite party examined her father as O.P.W.-1 and herself as O.P.W.-2. The following documents were exhibited by the applicant: Ext.-1 is the xerox copy of birth certificate of Manish Sharma, Ext.-2 is the xerox copy of affidavit dated 03.12.1999, Ext.-3 is the xerox copy of Newspaper cutting, Ext.-4 is the xerox copy of the certified copy of judgment passed in C/1 case no. 30 of 2003, Ext.-5 to 5/K are the xerox copy of counterfoils of P.C receipts. Ext.-6 is the petition to supdt. 30 of 2003, Ext.-5 to 5/K are the xerox copy of counterfoils of P.C receipts. Ext.-6 is the petition to supdt. of police Jamshedpur by Ashok Kumar Sharma, Ext.-7 is the rejoinder, Ext.-8 is the legal notice dated 10.8.1994, Ext.-9 is the list of articles received by Smt. Prabhawati Sharma and Ext.-10 is the certified copy of interim maintenance order dated 10.3.1998. 7. Exts. 1 to 3 were photocopies and marked with objection. Ext.-1 is the birth certificate of Manish Sharma for proof, of which applicant had examined A.W.2, Bhola Nath Mahato, who claimed himself to be the Mukhia of Samram Panchayat under Ghamaria Block. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the original Ext.-1 was taken by Mahendra Sharma. He further stated at Para-5 that he was the Mukhia but for how long he could not remember. He also admitted that since 1978 there was no election for Mukhia in Bihar and Jharkhand. The said birth certificate was issued in the year 1999 and at that time there was no Panchayati Raj and no Mukhia was empowered to issue any birth certificate. On being suggested, he further stated that he cannot bring the original register of birth certificate and he is unable to say that where is the inquiry report. He further deposed that the address of Mahendra Sharma is not written on Ext.-1 (xerox copy of birth certificate). 8. A.W.-1, applicant supported his case. In his examination-in-chief, he admitted that he had no any original document with respect to Exts.-1 to 5 series. According to him, he got information of remarriage through Newspaper “Ispat Mail” (Ext.-3). Ext.-3 is an advertisement only. He further proved Ext.-2 marked with objection being photocopy of affidavit sworn by Ram Cheez Sharma father of opposite party, Smt. Sarda Sharma. According to this document, father of opposite party had declared that the marriage of his daughter, Sarda Sharma was solemnized on 28th May, 1997 with Mahendra Sharma and that his daughter had given birth to a male child known as Manish Sharma on 11th May, 1999. The deponent of this affidavit was examined by opposite party as O.P.W.-1 in the instant case. In his deposition, he had refuted all the facts and allegations of the applicant. 9. Opposite party on her part examined herself and father. He had stated that opposite party/respondent herein, Sarda Sharma had been residing with her daughter, Shilpa since 1992. The deponent of this affidavit was examined by opposite party as O.P.W.-1 in the instant case. In his deposition, he had refuted all the facts and allegations of the applicant. 9. Opposite party on her part examined herself and father. He had stated that opposite party/respondent herein, Sarda Sharma had been residing with her daughter, Shilpa since 1992. He denied that his daughter (opposite party) had remarried with Mahendra Sharma or any other person after her divorce from the applicant. The daughter of opposite party, Shilpa is a student of Class-XII at Tagore Academy Sakchi, Jamshedpur and they were staying together. He denied that opposite party was lived at Bhilai with any other person, namely, Mahendra Sharma or ever delivered a male child. He further deposed that the birth certificate filed by the applicant are false and fabricated. He also denied that he ever sworn such affidavit (Ext.-2) filed by the applicant. O.P.W. No. 2, in her deposition, stated that she had been residing with her daughter at her parental house since 1992 due to marital dispute with the applicant. She denied to have remarried Mahendra Sharma or any other person. She had engaged herself in upbringing of her only issue namely Shilpa, who is a student of Class-XII at Tagore Academy Sakchi, Jamshedpur and were living together at her parental home. She further stated that these documents been filed by the applicant are false, forged and manufactured by the applicant with malafide intention to escape from his liabilities to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1000/- only per month. She further stated about the payment of arrear of Rs. 50,000/- pursuant to Execution Case no. 1 of 1999, though the total arrears of maintenance stand at Rs. 1,29,000/-. She further stated that this applicant had committed acts of forgery, for which Court Marshall proceeding was initiated against him by the Indian Air Force and he was sentenced for six months Rigorous Imprisonment and also dismissed from his service. For another act of forgery, the applicant was convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years by the Court of S.D.J.M., Jamshedpur on 5th October, 1999 in G.R. Case No. 1784 of 1993. These acts were not confronted or disputed by the applicant even by suggestion. 10. For another act of forgery, the applicant was convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years by the Court of S.D.J.M., Jamshedpur on 5th October, 1999 in G.R. Case No. 1784 of 1993. These acts were not confronted or disputed by the applicant even by suggestion. 10. On consideration of the material evidence on record and the pleadings of the parties, learned Family Court came to the conclusion that the case set up by the applicant of remarriage of opposite party, is unsubstantiated. Exhibit nos. 1 to 3 all were xerox copies and are not worthy of credence. A.W.-2 had, in his deposition, accepted that since 1978 there was no election of Mukhia in Bihar and Jharkhand. This certificate was issued on 15th May, 1999. A.W.-2 had also not been aware for what period he was elected as Mukhia and he was not empowered to issue the birth certificate. Moreover, the original birth certificate or birth register were not produced to support the allegation based on Ext.-1. Opposite Party Witness no. 1 who was alleged to be the deponent of Ext.-2-afidavit had, in his deposition, completely refuted the allegation of applicant for making any such statement on oath. Ext.-3 being a Newspaper cutting regarding advertisement published in ‘Ispat Mail’ was of no relevance to come to a finding of remarriage of opposite party with any other person. Learned Family Court also observed that the applicant is a habitual person, who had indulged in making of forged document, for which he had been punished by the Indian Air Force for six months and dismissed from his service. He had also been convicted and sentenced for three years R.I., for forging the account of State Bank of India, Bistupur Branch in a separate case. Based on these facts and opinion, the application was dismissed. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the material evidence on record to question the finding of learned Family Court. He further submits that the father of opposite party-wife had not denied that he had made such statement on affidavit which has been adduced as Ext.-2 by the applicant. The documents on record if considered properly, conclusively establish the allegation made by the applicant of her remarriage. Therefore, the impugned findings need to be reversed. 12. Learned counsel for the opposite party/respondent-wife has defended the findings rendered by learned Family Court. The documents on record if considered properly, conclusively establish the allegation made by the applicant of her remarriage. Therefore, the impugned findings need to be reversed. 12. Learned counsel for the opposite party/respondent-wife has defended the findings rendered by learned Family Court. He has also referred to the discussions made on all exhibits and affidavits of either parties in support of his submission. 13. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned judgment as also the relevant material evidence relied upon by the parties as discussed by learned Family Court. On a conspectus of things, in the ultimate analysis, we are of the view that learned Family Court has appreciated the material evidence on record in proper perspective and the findings do not appear to suffer from any such illegality or perversity which warrants interference in appeal. The whole case of the applicant was based on Exhibits 1 to 3, all of which were Xerox copies and not duly exhibited as material evidence. He failed to justify the production of secondary evidence and the absence of primary evidence in that regard. A.W.2 who deposed in his favour is also not credit worthy witness whose testimony could be relied upon in support of proof of birth certificate allegedly issued by him. Other material evidence as well as documentary evidence have also not been conclusively proved as one is advertisement in a Newspaper and other being the affidavit by father of the opposite party, who in his deposition as opposite party no. 1 had completely refuted such false allegation of the applicant. 14. Considered in totality, we do find any error in the findings of learned Family Court to interfere in the impugned order. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.