1 2025:CGHC:12972 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 232 of 2025  Varun Mishra S/o Late Shri Ganga Prasad Mishra Aged About 34 Years R/o Bulai Ka Pura, 177/27/41 Govindpur, Teviargang, Allahabad (Prayagraj), Uttar Pradesh ... Petitioner(s) versus  Chetna Mishra W/o Varun Mishra Aged About 30 Years Present Address- C/o Ashok Kumar Pandey, Vivekanand Nagar, Plot No. 272-B, Mopka, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 19. 03.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order passed by the learned Family Court, Bilaspur in MJC No. 986/2019 dated 19.12.2024, whereby an application moved by the petitioner under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the police to provide Call Detail Records (CDR) and the location of the respondent/wife has been rejected. 2. The facts of the present case are as under:- (a) The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 26.04.2018 at Prayagraj (Allahabad), Uttar Pradesh. On account of some disputes, the respondent/wife returned to her parental house on 17.07.2019. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.03.21 19:26:06 +0530 2 (b) The respondent/wife moved an application under Section 125 of CrPC on 05.10.2019 for the grant of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- per month before the learned Family Court, Bilaspur. (c) In the pending application, the petitioner/husband moved an application under Section 91 of CrPC on 22.07.2023 seeking a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur to submit Call Detail Records (CDR) and location details of phone numbers of the petitioner, respondent and the respondent’s father. (d) The learned Family Court, Bilaspur vide impugned order dated 19.12.2024, rejected the application so moved by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner may approach the Office of Superintendent of Police to get those documents. 3. Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that to ascertain the allegations made by the respondent against the petitioner, Call Detail Records (CDR) and location details are necessary. He would further submit that on the alleged date of the incident, the petitioner was not present in Bilaspur city and false allegations have been made with regard to the demand of dowry and cruelty. He would further submit that in a criminal case registered against the petitioner, a direction has been issued to the Investigating Officer to provide location details of the petitioner’s mobile, but till date, the same has not been provided. He would also submit that the learned Family Court ought to have allowed the application. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court of M.P. in the matter of Special Police Establishment vs. Umesh Tiwari and another passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 60404 of 2021. 3 4. I have heard Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner and perused the order impugned. 5. Admittedly, an application under Section 125 of CrPC was filed by the respondent on 05.10.2019, claiming therein maintenance to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- per month against the petitioner. It is stated in para 6 of the application that on 16.07.2019 when the respondent was on her way to the parental house, the petitioner assaulted her and she was saved by nearby people. In para 7, it is pleaded that on 17.07.2019, she came to Bilaspur. 6. A perusal of the pleadings made in the application moved under Section 125 of CrPC would make it clear that there is no allegation to the effect that the petitioner came to Bilaspur and assaulted the respondent. According to the depicted story, the respondent was assaulted by the petitioner while she was on her way to her parental house. 7. The petitioner moved an application under Section 91 of CrPC seeking a direction to the Police authorities to provide Call Detail Records (CDR) and location details of phone numbers of the petitioner, respondent and the respondent’s father. In the application, particularly in para 2, it is stated that there are false allegations to the effect that on 21.07.2019, the petitioner came to Bilaspur and approached the respondent. It is also stated that a demand of dowry was made by the petitioner, whereas on the said date, the petitioner was at Village Bhulai, Prayagraj (Allahabad). 8. A perusal of the application moved under Section 125 of CrPC and Section 91 of CrPC would make it clear that the respondent has not made any allegation against the petitioner in the entire application that on 21.07.2019, he approached her and made a demand of dowry and threatened too. 4 9. As per averments made in the application under Section 91 of CrPC, the petitioner was at Prayagraj; therefore, he should approach the Police authorities of Prayagraj to collect Call Detail Records (CDR) and location details. 10. The matter of Umesh Tiwari (supra), was a criminal case, whereas, the present is a matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife. 11. It is a well settled principle of law that the parties have to prove their case themselves and they cannot take the shelter of Court. If the petitioner wants to prove that on a particular date, he was not present in Bilaspur, he may adduce evidence in this regard before the learned Family Court however Call Detail Records (CDR) of the respondent/wife cannot be granted. Such a resort would amount to a breach of privacy of the wife, and therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Family Court rightly rejected the application. 12. Considering the facts discussed above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Family Court. 13. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant