1 CGHC010263392026 2026:CGHC:29306 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 863 of 2026 Smt. Dipika @ Ruchika Sahu W/o Shri Purushottam Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Parental House Village Devri, Police Station, Dharsiwa, Tehsil And District Jashpur (C.G.) --- Applicant versus Purushottam Sahu S/o Shri Chhedilal Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o New Teacher Colony Near Railway Fatak, Tilda Tehsil And Police Station Nevra, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 13.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Punit Ruparel, learned counsel appearing, for the applicant. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and set- aside/quash the impugned order dated 20.05.2026 (Annexure A-1) and consequently directed to respondent to pay maintenance as prayed before the Family Court, Raipur by the revisioner/wife on the date ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.07.14 17:02:02 +0530 2 of application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by the applicant/wife, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant/wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Raipur, seeking maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month. It is an undisputed fact that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 19.04.2018 as per the Hindu custom and rites at village Devri Raipur. In the application filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., the applicant narrated, inter alia, that the respondent/husband used to cast aspersions on her character. Whenever she talked on her mobile phone, the respondent would suspect her character, level false allegations against her, and subject her to cruelty. It was further stated that the applicant is a literate, decent woman who follows the customs and traditions of her family. The parents of the respondent/husband also supported him in his unlawful acts and encouraged him to subject the applicant to cruelty. It was further alleged that they pressurized the applicant to take up employment for the financial benefit of the family. The applicant further stated that on 21.12.2018, the respondent, on the false pretext that he was required to go outside the city and would take her back upon his return, left her at her parental home. However, on 26.12.2018, the applicant came to know that the respondent had already returned to his house but did not come to take her back. The applicant further submitted that on 19.12.2018, the respondent came to her parental house and informed her that the battery of his mobile phone had been discharged and that he urgently needed to send an e-mail. On this pretext, he took her mobile phone. Thereafter, he checked the call details for the period from 21.12.2018 to 29.12.2018 and contacted every person whose number appeared in the call records to enquire 3 about their conversations with the applicant. It was further stated that on 31.12.2018, the respondent, along with his parents and about 8 to 10 relatives, came to the applicant's parental house and made false and baseless allegations regarding her character, causing humiliation and embarrassment to her. The applicant further alleged that the respondent and his parents pressurized her to bring Rs.3,00,000/- from her parental family for the purpose of business. She was deeply hurt by the false allegations made against her character and, being unable to bear the humiliation, attempted to commit suicide by jumping into a village pond. However, the villagers rescued her in time. It was further stated that due to the continuous cruelty inflicted by the respondent and his family members, her physical and mental health deteriorated considerably. The applicant further submitted that despite having knowledge of her deteriorating health condition, the respondent never visited or enquired about her well-being. It was further stated that the respondent was working as an Executive Officer in Sharda Dairy situated at Nayaktad (Kharora) and was earning approximately Rs.25,000/- per month. The applicant is a housewife, has no independent source of income, and is entirely dependent upon her parents for her livelihood. On these grounds, she claimed maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month from the respondent. 4. The respondent/husband, in his reply, denied the allegations made by the applicant. He alleged that the applicant had an illicit relationship with one Jeevan Kamal Sen and, therefore, she was not entitled to maintenance. He denied having subjected the applicant to cruelty. He further submitted that the applicant was working at a Choice Centre of her own volition and was earning approximately Rs.6,500/- per month, as per the information received by him. It was further stated that the 4 applicant had voluntarily left the matrimonial home on 21.12.2018 without informing either him or his parents and went to her parental home at Village Devri. According to the respondent, he made several efforts to bring her back, but she refused to return. He admitted that he was employed as an Accountant in Sharda Dairy and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. However, due to the matrimonial dispute, he left the said employment and thereafter started working in a private organization, where he was earning approximately Rs.5,700/- per month. The respondent further submitted that after the marriage he had taken proper care of the applicant, accompanied her on outings, and also arranged medical treatment for her body pain. He further stated that the applicant used to wear modern dresses, to which he never raised any objection. However, he alleged that the applicant spent most of her time talking on her mobile phone and informed him that Kamal was her close friend who frequently visited their house. According to the respondent, whenever he returned home, the applicant would immediately disconnect her phone calls. When he questioned her regarding the calls, she failed to provide any satisfactory explanation. He further submitted that he merely advised the applicant that maintaining frequent telephonic conversations with another male after marriage was not appropriate for a healthy matrimonial relationship. With the passage of time, the relationship between the parties became strained and bitter. Kamal became the main cause of frequent quarrels between them. Whenever the respondent/husband questioned the applicant regarding Kamal, the applicant became angry. The respondent further alleged that the applicant used to delete her call records in order to conceal her relationship with Kamal. He further stated that he received an audio recording of a conversation between the applicant and Kamal, which 5 was forwarded to his mobile phone, and thereafter he returned the applicant's mobile phone to her. The respondent informed his father and other relatives about the said conversation, whereupon they visited the applicant's parental house in an attempt to resolve the dispute. However, according to the respondent, the applicant jumped into a pond, after which they returned to their home and submitted a written complaint before Police Station Dharsiwa on 30.12.2018 in support of their defence. The respondent further submitted an application before their community (Samaj); however, the applicant and her father did not attend the meeting convened by the community. Thereafter, the applicant sent a legal notice through her counsel, which was duly replied to by the respondent. It was further alleged that the applicant deliberately omitted to mention the said legal notice and the respondent's reply thereto in her application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The respondent further alleged that the applicant was living in adultery and had threatened to implicate him in a false criminal case. 5. In support of her case, the applicant examined herself as AW-1 and also examined Mansukha Sahu as AW-2 and Narsingh Sahu as AW-3. The respondent examined only himself as DW-1. 6. The learned Family Court framed, inter alia, the issue as to whether the applicant was residing separately from the respondent for sufficient cause. While deciding the said issue, the learned Family Court considered the allegations that the respondent used to cast aspersions on the character of the applicant, had deserted her, and had allegedly demanded Rs.3,00,000/- for the expansion of his business. 7. The applicant (AW-1), in her deposition before the learned Family Court, stated that she resided in the matrimonial home for about eight months. She further stated that, with a view to preserving the matrimonial 6 relationship, she did not lodge any complaint against the respondent or his family members before the police. She reiterated all the allegations made in her application and deposed that the respondent continuously cast doubts on her character, which resulted in bitterness in their relationship. According to her, the respondent ultimately deserted her and withdrew from the matrimonial relationship. 8. While deciding the aforesaid issue, the learned Family Court concentrated solely on the alleged conversation between the applicant and Kamal Sen produced by the respondent. However, the said electronic evidence was not accompanied by the mandatory certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act to establish its authenticity. Moreover, the typed transcript of the alleged conversation did not contain the mobile phone numbers of either party to the conversation. Therefore, the alleged conversation lacked authenticity and evidentiary value. The respondent merely filed a typed transcript before the learned Family Court without producing the original electronic record or complying with the mandatory requirements of the Evidence Act. Consequently, the said transcript was inadmissible in evidence. Despite this, the learned Family Court relied upon the said inadmissible material while deciding the dispute between the parties and concluded that the applicant was living in adultery. On that basis, the learned Family Court held that the applicant had failed to establish sufficient cause for residing separately from the respondent and, consequently, rejected her application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. by invoking the provisions of Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. Hence, the present revision. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 20.05.2026 passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to law as well 7 as the facts of the case. The findings recorded therein are erroneous and unsustainable in the eyes of law and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. He submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate the fact that the applicant was subjected to cruelty by the respondent and his family members, who repeatedly cast aspersions on her character and demanded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for the expansion of the respondent's business. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the alleged mobile phone conversation between the applicant and one Kamal Sen is false, fabricated, and manipulated. The applicant specifically submits that the said conversation was allegedly created by the respondent/husband with the aid of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and was directly produced before the learned Family Court. The respondent also filed a typed transcript of the alleged conversation; however, the transcript does not mention the date of the conversation or the mobile phone numbers of the persons allegedly involved. The learned Family Court further failed to verify the authenticity of the alleged voices of the applicant and Kamal Sen by obtaining an examination from a competent forensic laboratory. Moreover, the electronic record was not accompanied by the mandatory certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. Despite these material defects, the learned Family Court relied upon the said alleged conversation and recorded adverse findings against the applicant. The said findings are illegal, arbitrary, and liable to be set aside. He also submits that in paragraph 26 of the impugned order, the learned Family Court itself recorded that the downloaded electronic data produced by the respondent had not been examined by any forensic or IT expert and was not supported by the mandatory certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, the findings recorded on the basis of such inadmissible 8 electronic evidence are perverse and unsustainable in law. He submits that casting baseless aspersions on the character of one's wife, without any justifiable reason, itself amounts to mental cruelty and destroys the matrimonial relationship. In order to avoid his legal liability to pay maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., the respondent fabricated false electronic evidence with the aid of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and produced the same before the learned Family Court without complying with the mandatory requirements of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. Despite the absence of any certificate establishing the authenticity of the alleged electronic record, the learned Family Court relied upon the same and erroneously concluded that the applicant was living in adultery, thereby denying her maintenance. Such reliance on inadmissible electronic evidence is contrary to the settled principles of law. He further submits that the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. The respondent is a person having sufficient means to maintain the applicant, whereas the applicant is a housewife having no independent source of income and is wholly dependent upon the respondent for her maintenance. After being deserted by the respondent, the applicant has been compelled to depend upon her parents for her livelihood. The respondent has ruined the applicant's matrimonial life by making false and baseless allegations against her character and has subjected her to immense mental agony. He submits that Articles D-1 and D-2 produced by the respondent/husband are not accompanied by the mandatory certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act to establish their authenticity. The said electronic records were produced directly before the learned Family Court without having been produced before or verified by any competent authority. Furthermore, the respondent has 9 failed to satisfactorily explain the manner in which the alleged electronic data was obtained. On the one hand, he has stated that the applicant immediately deleted the call records from her mobile phone, while on the other hand, he has claimed that he recovered the alleged conversation from the same mobile phone and transferred it to his own device. These contradictory stands render the respondent's version wholly unreliable and unbelievable. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the allegations made by the parties against each other, and the material available on record, this Hon'ble Court may kindly allow the present revision and grant maintenance to the applicant, particularly when the respondent has failed to establish his defence before the learned Family Court in accordance with law. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 11. From a perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after duly considering the pleadings, documents, and evidence adduced by the parties, rejected the application filed by the applicant under Section 125 of the BNSS. The learned Family Court recorded a finding that the material available on record established that the applicant-wife was in a relationship with a person other than her husband and, therefore, her conduct fell within the ambit of adultery. Consequently, the learned Family Court held that the applicant had failed to establish that she was residing separately from the respondent for any sufficient or justifiable cause. 12. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the 10 impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 13. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek