JUDGMENT : SANJAY PRASAD, J. 1. The Criminal Revision No. 1149 of 2019 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 25.06.2019 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in the Original Maintenance Case No. 80 of 2014 and Original Suit No. 236 of 2016 whereby the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi has dismissed the petition filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for maintenance by the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she is the legally wedded wife of Opposite Party No. 2 Vikram Pandey. Her marriage was solemnized on 19.4.2012 at Hotel BNR Chanakya, Ranchi in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals and at the time of marriage or after marriage huge dowry was demanded and received by the Opposite Party No. 2 and his relatives. Before the start of marriage in compelling circumstances, the father of the Opp. Party No. 2 has taken an amount of Rs. 12 lakh and at the time of marriage the parents of the petitioner given old family golden ornament of about 20(Twenty) Bharies and new golden ornament of Rs. 35.6 grams, costly apparels, other household articles and utensils of Silver, Bronze and Steel as gift to the petitioner. It is stated that along with all gift articles the petitioner went to her matrimonial home on 20.04.2012 but since her arrival at her matrimonial home the inmates of the house shouted abusive language for the less dowry and gift. It is stated that in the night of 21.04.2012 the petitioner came to know that the Opp. Party had relation with another woman when she heard the conversation between the Opp. No. 2 on phone with other lady, the Opp. Party threatened that petitioner will never take her place and he will send the petitioner to her parental home. On queries made by the petitioner, Opposite Party No. 2 shamelessly replied that he is in love with his beloved Sonu Karla resident of Delhi. It is stated that the opposite Party no. 2 also revealed that fact that he was not ready to marry with the petitioner but due to pressure and threat of his father, he solemnized the marriage with the petitioner and he will never leave the aforesaid Sonu Karla @ Minakshi, which caused mental shock and immense pain to the petitioner. It is stated that the opposite Party no. 2 also revealed that fact that he was not ready to marry with the petitioner but due to pressure and threat of his father, he solemnized the marriage with the petitioner and he will never leave the aforesaid Sonu Karla @ Minakshi, which caused mental shock and immense pain to the petitioner. Further the case is that the petitioner was subjected to almost cruelty in the hands of her mother in-law and father in-law for the demand of Toyta Car and to furnish the flat of the opposite party no. 2 at Delhi with all latest amenities, but the parents of the petitioner showed inability to fulfill their illegal demand for which she was subjected to mental and physical torture. Thereafter the petitioner informed the misdeeds of his father in-law to her mother on 30.04.2012. Hence the petitioner was taken from her matrimonial home by her mother. However, after much persuasion the in-laws of the petitioner decided to bring the petitioner and the petitioner and her mother in law left Ranchi for Delhi on 16.05.2012. The petitioner along with her mother-in- law reached at Delhi on 17.05.12 but situation became bad to worst and due to mental and physical torture the petitioner went into depression, the opposite party i.e. opposite party no. 2 and his parents used to administer her drugs and after consumption of drugs, the petitioner became semi consciousness state of mind and badly affected the mental status of the petitioner and was not in a condition to recognize the person and lastly on 23.05.2012 the opposite Party brought the petitioner at Ranchi and left her at Ranchi Airport and since then the petitioner is living with her parents. It is stated that the petitioner is a student and having no source of income and she has no income of her own and totally dependent upon the opposite party no. 2 for her day to day affairs and for expenses of her higher education and medical treatment, but Opp. party no. 2 has never cared of the petitioner and denied to make any payment for maintenance. It is stated that the Opposite party no. 2 is a man of means, he is the son of the Chief Conservator of Forest, having vast landed property and residential house and flats at Ranchi and New Delhi. The Opp. Party no. party no. 2 has never cared of the petitioner and denied to make any payment for maintenance. It is stated that the Opposite party no. 2 is a man of means, he is the son of the Chief Conservator of Forest, having vast landed property and residential house and flats at Ranchi and New Delhi. The Opp. Party no. 2 has flats and residential homes situated at Delhi and Ranchi. The rental income of the flats situated at Ranchi and Delhi collected and kept by the Opposite Party amounting to Rs. 85,000/- (Eighty five thousand rupees) per month and apart from rental income he is posted as Asstt. Manager in IDBI Bank, Drawing salary of about Rs. 50,000/- per month. It is submitted that the Opp. Party No. 2 has ancestral landed property of his parental village and having income from agriculture and horticulture of not less than Rs. 6,00,000/- Six lacs rupees) per annum as his share. The Opp. Party no. 2 from the known sources having income of about Rs. 1,85,000/- per month and the wealth of the Opp. Party is evident from the fact that he is using two luxurious car at Delhi for his own use. 3. It is stated that the petitioner as the daughter of Deputy Director of Department of Statistics, Govt. of Jharkhand and daughter-in-law of C.C.F. Department of Forest, Govt. of Jharkhand and wife of Asstt. Manager of IDBI Bank entitled to lead her life in the living standard of the opposite Party and his family to save family dignity and for the same she is in need of at least Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy five thousand) per month. It is stated that due to paucity of funds the petitioner is facing difficulties to maintain herself and Opp. Party No. 2 denied to part even a single penny for the maintenance and medical expenses of the petitioner. 4. It is stated that since 2014 to 2019 this maintenance case has proceeded and in the mean time Opp. Party No. 2 was directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month as ad interim maintenance. It is stated that as against the order of ad interim maintenance, the Opp. Party No. 2 had moved before Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court vide Criminal Revision No. 301/2016 but the same has not been interfered. 5. Party No. 2 was directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month as ad interim maintenance. It is stated that as against the order of ad interim maintenance, the Opp. Party No. 2 had moved before Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court vide Criminal Revision No. 301/2016 but the same has not been interfered. 5. It is also important to mention here that the petitioner has also filed a criminal case as against her in laws including Opp. Party No. 2 vide Complaint Case No. 2052/13 in which cognizance has been taken under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 6. It is stated that one suit for divorce was filed vide MTS Case No. 138/2015 but the same was dismissed vide order dated 6.10.2016 and the present divorce suit was filed at Delhi behind the back of the petitioner on one or another false ground. However, the same was transferred to Jharkhand by the order of Hon'ble Apex Court. However, the plaint in question was manipulated and when this was surfaced then he did not appear before the court. It is stated that against the dismissal of suit i.e. M.T.S. No. 138/15 a restoration application being Civil Misc. Case No. 35/2016 was filed but the same was also withdrawn. Again in the year 2017 a fresh divorce application/suit was filed vide Original Suit No. 230/17 but vide order dated 19.01.2019 the learned Court below has observed that fresh divorce petition filed vide Original Suit No. 230/17 is not maintainable and barred under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C. It is stated that from the above fact, it is quite clear that Opp. Party No. 2 had tried his level best to create and manipulate documents/evidence against the petitioner and only to harass her he had filed one or another application i.e. behind her back. The petitioner has filed Original Maintenance Case No. 80 of 2014 for grant of maintenance of Rs. 75,000/- per month with effect from 23.06.2012 and for direction to the opposite party no. 2 to pay the amount of Rs. One Lakh as expenses of the proceeding. 7. On the other hand, the case of the opposite party no. The petitioner has filed Original Maintenance Case No. 80 of 2014 for grant of maintenance of Rs. 75,000/- per month with effect from 23.06.2012 and for direction to the opposite party no. 2 to pay the amount of Rs. One Lakh as expenses of the proceeding. 7. On the other hand, the case of the opposite party no. 2 in brief is as follows: (I) It is, however, specifically asserted that the marriage between the parties has never consummated as the petitioner, from day of marriage has been consistently and specifically denying having any physical relationship with Opposite Party No. 2 on one pretext or the other. The respondent-Opposite Party No. 2 despite being shocked and astonished initially co-operated with the petitioner and extended full support to her. (II) Since the very next day of marriage he has found the petitioner regularly talking with phone with someone else for long duration in a secret manner and when asked, used to say that she is talking to her mother, her uncommon behaviour give rise to suspicion in the mind of the petitioner and once when he redialed one of the frequent used number by the petitioner on which she used to say that she is talking to her mother, he was shocked and surprised when he heard a male voice from the other side, but after hearing the respondent's voice the call was disconnected. Upon asking the petitioner does not have any answer to this question. Upon further inquiry he came to know that the said number belongs to Delhi where the respondent was also working at that point of time. (III) After 10 days of the marriage on 29.04.2012 the petitioner went to her parental home to appear in M.A. Examination and the respondent-husband returned back to Delhi where he has to join his job on 29.04.2012. The petitioner thereafter lived at her parental home till 15.05.2012. On 16.05.2012 the petitioner along with respondent's mother arrived at Delhi and the respondent was shocked and surprised when he found that the petitioner-wife again refused to have sexual intercourse with him. This created doubt and apprehension in the respondent's mind, who noticed that the petitioner had no care or concern for either the respondent or his family members. She was found talking on phone to some body else quite regularly. She never used to prepare food or do any household work. This created doubt and apprehension in the respondent's mind, who noticed that the petitioner had no care or concern for either the respondent or his family members. She was found talking on phone to some body else quite regularly. She never used to prepare food or do any household work. (IV) Due to safety concerns arising out of frequent crime in metropolitan cities, the respondent- O.P. No. 2 got Surveillance Camera installed in the house on 20.05.2012. The respondent's parents left for Ranchi on 09.06.2012 living behind the petitioner and respondent alone at Delhi house as the petitioner was working, she used to stay alone in the house when the respondent was away in his office. (V) Normally, the respondent-O.P. No. 2 used to leave for office at about 9.30 A.M. and returning back at about 7 P.M. However, on 16.06.2012 which was a Saturday when respondent came back to house at about 3.30 PM. he found the house locked from inside. Presuming that probably the petitioner was sleeping, he started calling her name, asked her to open the door. The petitioner came out running, looking shocked and surprised find the respondent on the door and wearing only under garments on her body, which was not natural. Upon asking by the respondent – O.P. No. 2, she commanded him not to stare in a shameful manner and fetched her cloth from inside. (VI) Thereafter, respondent decided to look at the camera recording-O.P. No. 2 and during the night when the petitioner was sleeping he watched the C.C.T.V camera recording which clearly showed a man having sexual intercourse with the petitioner on several occasions and that man sleeping with respondent's wife, in different poses. He even collected call details of the mobile phone of the petitioner for the month of May, 2012 which showed that she made frequent calls to her boy friend with whom she had voluntarily sexual intercourse. (VII) Shocked and Shattered by such development the respondent felt cheated and discussed about the same with his father to whom he disclosed the entire incident. His father advised him not to do anything just to leave petitioner back to her parental home. Accordingly, on 23.06.2012 he left the petitioner back to her parental home at Ranchi and narrated all such mis-happening and her conduct to them. While after the occurrence dated 16.06.2012 he had stopped talking to petitioner. His father advised him not to do anything just to leave petitioner back to her parental home. Accordingly, on 23.06.2012 he left the petitioner back to her parental home at Ranchi and narrated all such mis-happening and her conduct to them. While after the occurrence dated 16.06.2012 he had stopped talking to petitioner. (VIII) The petitioner lodged false case i.e. Complaint Case No. 2052/2013 against the respondent-O.P. No. 2 and his parents u/s 498A IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act in order to commit extort money from him and his parents which is still pending in the Court of SDJM Ranchi. A Maintenance Case, Original Maintenance Case No. 80/2014 has also been filed by the petitioner in which the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi has granted Rs.15,000/- per month as interim maintenance to her. (IX) The respondent- O.P. No. 2 has filed a suit u/s 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of their marriage against his wife before the District Judge (West District) Tis Hazari Court, Delhi registered as HMA NO. 938/2014 (Old HMA 373/2013) which stood transferred to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in terms of direction based in Transfer Petition No. 723/2014 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and after transfer the said case has been registered as Original Suit No. 138/2015 in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi, vide order dated 13.04.2015. The said suit was dismissed in default on 06.10.2016 against which Miscellaneous Case no. 35/2016 was preferred by the respondent- husband for restoration but the same was also dismissed and withdrawn on 12.04.2017. Since then a fresh suit was also filed by the husband registered as Original Suit No. 230/2017 as the earlier suit could not be decided on merit and was dismissed on account of non-prosecution. The said Original Suit No. 230/2017 is pending for adjudication before this Court. All the allegations levelled against him and family members any where in the plaint has denied, false, concocted and frivolous putting the petitioner at strict proof to those allegations. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. 9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned judgment is illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law and as such the same is liable to be set aside. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. 9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned judgment is illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law and as such the same is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that learned court below has not considered that the petitioner is the legally married wife of O.P. No. 2 and learned court below has not at all considered that within two months of her marriage, she was driven out from her matrimonial house. It is submitted that learned court below has not at all considered that the husband (Opp. Party No. 2) has himself created and manufactured the CD by using his own skill of Electronics. It is submitted that learned court below has not at all considered that CD in question is itself doubtful and the same has not been supported by any other witness or expert. It is submitted that learned court below has not at all considered that the husband himself produced the CD before the court and the same has not been authenticated by any other expert and the learned court below has not at all considered that neither any Guard nor any CCTV clipping of Apartment or any other independent witness has been brought on record. It is submitted that learned court below has not at all considered that no case or allegation of adultery has even been investigated, enquired or verified by any independent agency or investigating agency. It is submitted that learned court below has not at all considered the third man with whom the petitioner has allegedly been involved, has not yet been surfaced and his identity has not been disclosed by the Opp. Party No. 2. It is submitted that learned court below has not at all considered that the alleged CD was said to be prepared or created in the month of June, 2012 but the same has not been produced before any agency or authority within the reasonable time rather after several months the false allegation was alleged but the same was never properly investigated. It is submitted that Video filed by the opposite party no. 2 is manipulated and no certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act has been produced to show authenticity of the Video clipping. It is submitted that Video filed by the opposite party no. 2 is manipulated and no certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act has been produced to show authenticity of the Video clipping. It is submitted that Ext.-D and D/1 are not reliable and even authenticity has not been given of her photograph/Studio from where it was prepared and it was not produced before any Police Officer in investigation. The opposite party no. 2 has filed discharge petition before this Court vide Cr. M.P. No. 3378 of 2018 along with other Cr. M.P. filed by the mother in-law and father in-law bearing Cr. M.P. No. 1403 of 2016 and Cr. M.P. No. 3046 of 2018 and all the above Cr. M.P. have been dismissed by the High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi vide order dated 02.05.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Smt. Anita Das vs. Sr. Subhash Ch. Das, 2015 SCC Online Tripura 128 and has submitted that mere single substance of adultery is not prove of adultery and unless the husband and wife are found in living in adultery continuously, the case of adultery is not made out. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon in the case of K. Veeriah vs. Muthulakshmi and Others, 1998 SCC Online Madras 938 and has submitted that single instances of adultery is not sufficient to prove the case of adultery and in the even case, the maintenance was allowed to the wife by the High Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi failed to take notice that without identifying adultery and without the case of adultery has been wrongly proved against the petitioner. It is submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunita Kachwaha and Others vs. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that even if the wife earns some small amount to maintain herself to save her life, she is entitled for maintenance and as such, the impugned judgment dated 25.06.2019 may be set aside and the petitioner may be allowed maintenance of Rs. 75,000/- per month. 10. 75,000/- per month. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interference is required from this Court. It is submitted that learned Court below has passed the impugned judgment by rejecting the claim of the petitioner as she was living in adultery. It is submitted that the petitioner has found to be living in adultery on various occasions in view of the evidence led by the husband- opposite party no. 2 in the learned Court below. It is submitted that Ext.-D and D/1 are the video clipping which support the case of the opposite party no. 2 that the petitioner was living in adultery and as such, this Criminal Revision Application may be dismissed. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, after adopting the submission of the learned A.P.P. has further submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interference is required. It is submitted that this Criminal Revision Application is devoid of merit and fit to be rejected. It is submitted that the learned Court below has rightly held that the petitioner was living in adultery while she was in New Delhi with this respondent-O.P. No. 2 and she was caught red handed even in June, 2012 on one occasion, but she managed to flee away. It is submitted that after watching the conduct of the petitioner and taking into consideration her suspicious behaviour, the opposite party no. 2 had installed one CCTV Camera in the bedroom of the petitioner in New Delhi and on various occasions, she has been seen establishing physical relationship with an unknown person in absence of the husband-opposite party no. 2. It is submitted that Ext. –D and D/1 are the video clip, which clearly demonstrate that the petitioner is living in adultery and has established physical relationship with unknown persons. It is submitted that the opposite party no. 2 protested against the misdeed and the acts of the petitioner. This petitioner had instituted the Complaint Case No. 2052 of 2013 under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal code and other offences against him and even the against his father and mother due to which they are facing trial and the same is pending in the learned Court below. 2 protested against the misdeed and the acts of the petitioner. This petitioner had instituted the Complaint Case No. 2052 of 2013 under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal code and other offences against him and even the against his father and mother due to which they are facing trial and the same is pending in the learned Court below. It is submitted that the opposite party no. 2 was paying interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- regularly to the petitioner in compliance of the order passed by the learned Court below and it was upheld by this Court and as such, the opposite party no. 2 had shown no latches in compliance of the order of this Court below and had regularly paid interim maintenance amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month till the dismissal of maintenance case. It is submitted that the discharge petition filed by the petitioner was rejected by the learned Court below for which the opposite party no. 2 had filed Criminal Revision No. 569 of 2019 before the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, but the same was withdrawn on 28.11.2019 as by that date charges were framed and as such the said application was withdrawn and the said case was dismissed as withdrawn. It is submitted that the petitioner was continuously talking with some other persons on her mobile phone and it was objecting by the opposite party no. 2 and his family members. Thus, the petitioner had instituted false case against them. It is submitted that in the matter of Family Court strict provision of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act is not necessary. It is submitted that Ext. –B and B/1 are the Video Clipping dated 11.06.2012 and 16.06.2012, which clearly demonstrate that the petitioner was living in adulterous condition. It is submitted that Ext.-C is the letter dated 18.08.2015 submitted by the opposite party no. 2 to the AGM/CH, RAC, Bhopal IDBI Bank by which it has been informed to send resignation from the bank and the petitioner has resigned from the services of the Bank due to stress and personal problems. It is submitted that Ext. –D is dated 20.06.2016 by which IDBI, Bank has recovered Rs. 6,24,033.98/- from the petitioner as the opposite party no. 2 was deemed to have relived from the service with effect from 12.07.2014. It is submitted that the opposite party no. It is submitted that Ext. –D is dated 20.06.2016 by which IDBI, Bank has recovered Rs. 6,24,033.98/- from the petitioner as the opposite party no. 2 was deemed to have relived from the service with effect from 12.07.2014. It is submitted that the opposite party no. 2 had gone in mental Trauma for which he had filed prescription marked as Y and Y/1 respectively which were issued by Dr. A.K. Sinha and Dr. Amar respectively on 10.07.2014 and 25.10.2014. It is submitted that the document marked as X and X/1 respectively are the pay slip and seniority list of the opposite party no. 2, which shows that total salary of the petitioner was Rs. 61,293.00 in the year 2014. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that it has been held in the case of Preeti Jain Vs. Kunal Jain and Another reported in AIR 2016 Rajasthan 153 that compliance of Section 65 of the Evidence Act is not necessary in the case instituted under Section Hindu Marriage Act. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has further submitted that in the case of Pradeep Kumar Sharma vs. Deepika Sharma, 2022 SCC Online Delhi 1035, if the wife is living in adultery, is not entitled for maintenance. It is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to maintenance in view of the fact mentioned above and hence this Criminal Revision Application may be dismissed. 12. Perused the Lower Court Records and the impugned judgment passed by the learned Court below and considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the sides. 13. It transpires from the impugned order dated the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi had decided the Original Maintenance Case No. 80 of 2014 filed by the petitioner under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. against the opposite party no. 2 and has also dismissed the Original Suit No. 236 of 2016 filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the opposite party no. 2. However, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi has dismissed both the cases i.e. Original Maintenance Case No. 80 of 2014 and Original Suit No. 236 of 2016 on the ground that the petitioner is living an adulterous relationship. 14. 2. However, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi has dismissed both the cases i.e. Original Maintenance Case No. 80 of 2014 and Original Suit No. 236 of 2016 on the ground that the petitioner is living an adulterous relationship. 14. It further appears from the impugned judgment that although both the cases were tried together by the learned Court below and the issues have been framed for both the cases simultaneously. 15. It further transpires that documents of both the cases have been marked together in both the cases. However, the learned Court below has observed in Para-26 that in view of the fact that both the cases are being decided together and while discussing issue no. 1 in Original Suit No. 236 of 2016 a lot of decisions has been made on material evidence I would like not to be repeat the same and hence this Court is referring issues framing by the leaned Court below in its judgment for convenience. The Court below had framed following issues as follows: “(I) Whether respondent Vikram Pandey (Husband) has withdrawn himself from the society of the petitioner Anupama Pandey (wife) without any reasonable excuse? (II) Whether respondent (husband) has deserted the petitioner Anupama Pandey Since 23rd May, 2012? (III) Whether petitioner (wife) is entitled for a decree for restitution of conjugal right against her husband? (IV) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any other equitable relief available as per settled matrimonial legal position and/or under the provision of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?” 16. The learned Court below, after discussing the case of both the parties and documents filed on behalf of both the sides, has mainly decided Issue no. 1 and has come to the conclusion that if the petitioner-wife is in adulterous relationship with a third person and an outsider it is sufficient reason for the respondent-husband to withdraw from the company and society of such type of wife. 17. Thereafter the learned Court below has simply decided issue no. 2 by observing that husband has not deserted his wife and has decided the issue no. 2 against the wife. 18. Thereafter the learned Court has decided issue nos. 3 and 4 by merely observing that both the issues have been decided against the petitioner-wife and as such, she is not entitled to any decree or any equitable relief. 2 by observing that husband has not deserted his wife and has decided the issue no. 2 against the wife. 18. Thereafter the learned Court has decided issue nos. 3 and 4 by merely observing that both the issues have been decided against the petitioner-wife and as such, she is not entitled to any decree or any equitable relief. Thereafter the learned Court below has discussed the Provisions of Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. and by placing reliance upon judgment passed in 1977 Cri. L.J. 148 in the case of Nalini Kumar Pal vs. SM. Khuku Rani Pal and Another, by Calcutta High Court, has held that the wife will be disqualified from getting any maintenance amount, if she is living in adultery. The learned Court below has further observed in Para- 26 of the judgment that a lot of discussion has been made on material evidence and hence he would not like to repeat the same in the caption of “Discussion in Original Maintenance Case No. 80 of 2014 and the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi has decided the issue of Maintenance Case in only Para-26, 27, 28 and 29 of the Judgment. 19. So far as the oral evidence of the petitioner is concerned, PW-1, Sheela Pandey, who is the mother of the petitioner and has supported the case of the petitioner during her evidence for grant of maintenance to the petitioner. During her cross-examination, she has emphasized that her son in-law was having illicit relationship with one girl Sonu Karla @ Meenakshi, but she is not aware of her address and details. She further stated that her daughter along with her husband had gone Delhi only once and she went to New Delhi on 16.05.2012 and returned from New Deli on 23.06.2012 and she had brought her daughter from Airport with her husband. She was shown the documents marked for identification- X and X/1 respectively in which father’s name and address of the opposite party no. 2 has been shown and she has stated that she is not aware of the salary of the opposite party no. 2 and she cannot say regarding the details of the property of the opposite party no. 2 at Ashok Nagar, Bokaro and New Delhi and Mumbai. She further asserted that her daughter is doing B. Ed. 2 has been shown and she has stated that she is not aware of the salary of the opposite party no. 2 and she cannot say regarding the details of the property of the opposite party no. 2 at Ashok Nagar, Bokaro and New Delhi and Mumbai. She further asserted that her daughter is doing B. Ed. from Vetsatha and M.A. from IGNOU and pursuing her all the courses to live at Ranchi. She has admitted that her daughter has instituted a criminal case against her son in-law. She also admitted that even her son in-law had instituted a case for divorce against her daughter. 20. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of PW-1, Sheela Pandey, who is the mother of the petitioner, it is evident that she has fully supported the case of the petitioner and she is the mother of the petitioner. Although during her examination in-chief, she has stated that salary of her son in-law is Rs. 61,293/- in July, 2014, but the opposite party no. 2 is getting salary of Rs. 97,000/- per month and apart from this opposite party no. 2 has got a house in Ashok Nagar, Ranchi and has got property and house in Bokaro, Delhi and Mumbai and from which he is earning Rupees Two to Three lacs per month, but during cross-examination, she could not give the details of the same. In spite of above, the pay slip of Rs. 61,293/- is admitted on behalf of both the sides. 21. PW-2 is Anupama Pandey i.e. the petitioner herself. During her evidence, she has stated that she has filed maintenance case against her husband and her marriage took place on 19.04.2012 at B.N.R. Chanakaya and after marriage, she came to her matrimonial home at Ashok Nagar, Ranchi and her marriage was consummated between both the sides. However, she heard that her husband was talking with another girl on 21.04.2012 & by consoling her to send his wife to Maike. She has further stated that her husband told her that his father has got performed marriage under pressure and if he failed to marry her, then his father could have taken poison and her husband has performed the marriage under pressure of his father and the name of the girl is Sonu Kalra with whom her husband is having illicit relationship. Thereafter she informed this fact to her mother in-law and father in-law, but she was scolded by both of them. Thereafter on 29.04.2012, her husband started demanding Toyata Car worth of Rs. 8,00,000/- and also asked her to furnish latest Model of TV, Fridge, Sofa and other useful items in the flat of New Delhi. However, she had protested, but she was assaulted. 22. She has further stated that when her husband went to New Delhi on 29.04.2012, then her father in-law has tried to commit rape upon her and had offered her that if her husband failed to keep her, then her father in-law will take care of all her needs, but the petitioner felt disturbed and as such, she informed her mother and as such, her brother brought her to Maike on 30.04.2012. However, she was harassed by her in-laws members from 30.04.2012 to 14.05.2012 by telephone by demanding dowry and she was asked to go to New Delhi and her father in-law got prepared tickets of her and her mother in-law only by Rajdhani Express, although she wanted to go to New Delhi with her mother. She has further stated that on 16.05.2012 to 23.06.2012, she remained in New Delhi, but she was treated with cruelty and physically and mentally tortured and she was not provided with food and she was assaulted by her husband. She was kept in a house in which other persons namely Neeraj Verma and Mayank Tiwari etc. were living and whenever she protested, she was assaulted. She has stated that her husband left her at Ranchi Airport on 23.06.2012 and since then she is living in her Maike and she has further claimed that she has no source of income and she is under treatment and its expenses are being borne by her father. She has stated that her husband is Manager in IDBI Bank and is earning Rs. 97,000/- per month and apart from this, he has got several flats in Ranchi and New Delhi and he is also earning Rs. 85,000/- from the rent from these flats and opposite party no. 2 has also ancestral property and the land and from which he is earning approx. Rs.1,85,000/- per month. 23. During her cross-examination, she has admitted that their cases were sent for mediation several times. 85,000/- from the rent from these flats and opposite party no. 2 has also ancestral property and the land and from which he is earning approx. Rs.1,85,000/- per month. 23. During her cross-examination, she has admitted that their cases were sent for mediation several times. She has also admitted that she wanted to return back with her husband and also admitted that whenever father in-law comes, she used to pay him respect. She has further stated that she is under treatment of Dr. Ashok Nath, but she is not aware of his address and she is not aware of the medicine, which has been given to her and she is not aware about the price of the medicine. She has further stated during cross-examination that her husband has got several flats in Ranchi and New Delhi and stated that address of flats at Ashok Nagar is 21-C, Road No. 1 and her husband has informed her that these flats are in his name. However, she could not say about the details of rent of Rs. 85,000/- received from any particular flats and could not say about the details of the ancestral property of the opposite party no. 2. She has further stated that she has disclosed about Dheeraj Verma and Mayank Tiwari during her examination inchief, but she has not established any physical relationship with both of them. She has admitted during her examination in-chief at Para-36, 37 and 38 that she has not disclosed the fact that on 29.04.2012 at night, her father in-law has tried to commit rape upon her and her father in-law had assured her to take care of physical requirement, but she has stated these facts in the case instituted under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. She has admitted that she was in New Delhi from 17.05.2012 to 23.06.2012 with her husband and had also remained in New Delhi 11.06.2012, 12.06.2012, 14.06.2012 and 16.06.2012. She has admitted that she had gone to watch a movie in New Delhi with mother of the friend of her husband once. She has emphasized that document marked as X and X/1 in the Court are genuine or not, but both the documents were given by her husband to her on 03.08.2017. 24. She has shown ignorance that her husband had installed CCTV Camera in the house at New Delhi. She has emphasized that document marked as X and X/1 in the Court are genuine or not, but both the documents were given by her husband to her on 03.08.2017. 24. She has shown ignorance that her husband had installed CCTV Camera in the house at New Delhi. She had denied the suggestion that she has been seen establishing physical relationship with one male person in the house of her husband in New Delhi on 11.06.2012, 12.06.2012, 14.06.2012 and 16.06.2012 and the act of establishing physical relationship was recorded in CCTV Camera. She had denied the suggestion that she has instituted false case against her husband and her in-laws members and treated them with cruelty. However, she has again stated that she still wants to live with her husband. 25. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of PW-2, Anupama Pandey, the petitioner herself, it is evident that her marriage was performed with the opposite party no. 2 on 19.04.2012. However, her husband has got illicit relationship with one Sonu Karla and she further stated by alleging that her father in-law had tried to commit rape upon her and has assured her to take care of her all physical needs, although, It has not been stated in the maintenance case filed by her. She has denied for establishing physical relationship with unknown person in the house of her husband in New Delhi on 11.06.2012, 12.06.2012, 14.06.2012 and 16.06.2012 respectively. Thus main crux is on the chastity and integrity of the character of the petitioner, which will be seen and scrutinized after the evidence of the husband-O.P. No. 2. 26. O.PW-1 is Keshav Prasad Pandey, who is the father of the O.P. No. 2 and has been examined on behalf of the husband-opposite party no. 2 and has stated that although marriage between his son and the petitioner were solemnized on 19.04.2012 without taking any dowry, but his daughter in-law never established physical relationship with his son and marriage was not consummated and after 10 days of marriage, she went to her maike for giving examination. Thereafter, the petitioner along with his wife and son went to New Delhi on 16.05.2012 and even in New Delhi, she refused to establish relationship with his son in the name of God, which caused suspicion. Thereafter, the petitioner along with his wife and son went to New Delhi on 16.05.2012 and even in New Delhi, she refused to establish relationship with his son in the name of God, which caused suspicion. He also stated that his daughter in-law i.e. the petitioner had not shown any respect of any member of the in-laws family and did not do any household work and hence, his son has engaged a maid for doing household work. He has also stated that considering the rise in crime graph in New Delhi and for security reason, his son has installed CCTV Camera in the house. He has suddenly stated on 16.06.2012 that when his son arrived at around 3.30 P. M. much prior to arriving home in his house, then he found door closed and after repeated knocking, the petitioner came outside in undergarment and when her son went inside bedroom, then she stood near bathroom, but she closed the door and her bedroom and got opened the door after three minutes and due to which, his son became suspicious and thereafter he enquired from the footage of the CCTV Camera and has found that his daughter in-law has established physical relationship on previous dates and due to which, his son was much aggrieved and has stated that his daughter in-law is living in adulterous life. He has further stated that his son has instituted a complaint in police at Delhi on 20.11.2012. He has further stated that his daughter in-law i.e. the petitioner is not fully dependent upon her parents, rather she is also a lot and handsome amount from the Tuition. He has denied that the petitioner is doing any higher education from any institution and he further denied that his daughter in-law has got any serious disease. He has further stated that his son has left the job of IDBI Bank and is still searching for a job and as such, the petitioner is not entitled for maintenance. 27. During cross-examination, he has stated in detail regarding formalities at the time of Chheka. He has asserted that nothing was taken at the time of marriage by him, but he admitted that dowry was given and jewellary was also given, but the same were not in photograph. He had denied in question and answer form for taking any dowry. 27. During cross-examination, he has stated in detail regarding formalities at the time of Chheka. He has asserted that nothing was taken at the time of marriage by him, but he admitted that dowry was given and jewellary was also given, but the same were not in photograph. He had denied in question and answer form for taking any dowry. He has asserted that the petitioner had not brought anything from her maike. He has asserted that some personal complaint was made on 29.04.2012 by the petitioner against him before going to New Delhi. He has shown ignorance about the details of divorce case, but has stated that the petitioner has instituted a criminal case against them. He has denied for teasing the petitioner in absence of his son. He has further denied that Mayank Tiwari and Dheeraj Verma were living in the same rented house, in which the petitioner and his son i.e. the opposite party no. 2 and his wife, were residing. He has shown ignorance about landlord of his house and has shown ignorance that rent was given by them and has stated that opposite party no. 2 was living in the 2nd floor, buy he could not say about the person of 1st floor and 3rd floor. He has further asserted that opposite party no. 2 is working as Branch Manager in IDBI and has resigned and opposite party no. 2 is not searching for job. He has further stated that his ancestral land is situated at Basit District in U. P. and he is having agricultural land of 1 and ½ Bigha, but the same is not in rent and his father has got three Bigha land. He has denied the suggestion that opposite party no. 2 is working in IDBI Bank and is getting Rs. 97,000/- per month. 28. Thus, it is evident from the evidence of OPW-1 i.e. father of the petitioner that he has raised suspicion on the character and chastity of his daughter in-law i.e. opposite party no. 2, and for which he got installed CCTV Camera in connivance with his son i.e. the O.P. No. 2 without the knowledge of the petitioner and he has claimed that his daughter in-law has established illicit relationship with one boy on 16.06.2012 and also on the previous dates. 2, and for which he got installed CCTV Camera in connivance with his son i.e. the O.P. No. 2 without the knowledge of the petitioner and he has claimed that his daughter in-law has established illicit relationship with one boy on 16.06.2012 and also on the previous dates. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of O.PW-1, Keshav Prasad Pandey, it is evident that he has denied about the demand of dowry from the petitioner and the fact of adultery has been asserted and further stated that his son is an un-employed person and he has resigned from service after institution of the case and is looking for a job. However, he has admitted that he learnt about the act of adultery from his son and thus, evidence of O.PW-1, Keshav Prasad Pandey cannot be relied upon as he is also a party to an illegal act and is a hearsay witness. 29. O.PW-2, Vikash Pandey is the opposite party no. 2 himself and he has stated the same fact as stated by O.PW-1, Keshav Prasad Pandey by stating that marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 was not consummated and his wife was talking with unknown person on her mobile and when his wife reached with his mother at New Delhi, however, his conjugal life was disrupted, when her wife did not take any interest. 30. He has stated that wife used to talk with unknown male person. He has also stated that his wife went to her maike after ten days for preparation of MA examination. However, on 16.05.2012, his wife along with mother of the opposite party no. 2 left for New Delhi and arrived at New Delhi on 17.05.2012, but his wife had refused to establish relationship with him due to which he was disturbed. He has produced video and video recording and he has stated in Para-11 that on 11.06.2012 at 2.15 P.M. he identifies his house 2nd floor no. 14/46 Subhash Nagar, New Delhi and his wife i.e. the opposite party no. 2 is being seen in her Undergarment by establishing physical relationship with some male person. He further stated at Para-12 that his wife has also established physical relationship in his house no. 14/46 Subhash Nagar, New Delhi in naked condition with some unknown person on 16.06.2012 at 12.15 PM. 2 is being seen in her Undergarment by establishing physical relationship with some male person. He further stated at Para-12 that his wife has also established physical relationship in his house no. 14/46 Subhash Nagar, New Delhi in naked condition with some unknown person on 16.06.2012 at 12.15 PM. He further claimed at Para-13 to have seen his wife in naked condition on 16.06.2012 at 12.14 noon with some unknown person establishing physical relationship in the 8th clip and he has obtained this data from DVR. 31. He further stated that normally he used to leave for office at 9.30 A. M. and returned in the evening at 7.00 P. M., however on 16.06.2012, he arrived at home at early about 3.00 P. M. and knocked the bell, but after much persuasion, his wife got opened the door and came out undergarment. Thereafter he went inside to take her clothes, but his door was locked from the outside. Thereafter he got checked recording of his CCTV Camera and has found that his wife has established physical relationship with unknown person on 11.06.2012, 12.06.2012, 14.06.2012 and 16.06.2012 respectively. He has proved the DVD Recording marked as Ext.-A (with objection). 32. It also reveals that he has given details of establishing physical relationship of his wife with unknown person in Para-13 to Para-20 in detail under various and different postures between 11.43 AM to 12.14 PM (Noon) and all such evidences shown vulgarity during the evidence recorded by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in the presence of the parties in the learned Court below and this Court deprecates the same for watching and recording such statements in such a crude and dirty manner before the learned Court below. Such type of evidence is impermissible to be recorded in respect of chastity and character of any women and naked photos of the petitioner in open Court in the presence of the party and their respective counsels, have been seen, is not appreciated by the Court. 33. Such type of evidence is impermissible to be recorded in respect of chastity and character of any women and naked photos of the petitioner in open Court in the presence of the party and their respective counsels, have been seen, is not appreciated by the Court. 33. He i.e. the O.P. No. 2 has further proved the certificate in this regard from “Buzz Dynamics” for the date of alleged occurrence taking place on 11.06.2012 and 16.06.2012 from the recording and has stated that he has obtained the recording, caught in the night through DVD from Budge Dynamics and he has proved certificate of recording of 11.06.2012 and 16.06.2012 respectively of “Buzz Dynamics” and certificate of Buzz Dynamics has been marked as Ext.-B (with objection) and Bill Book of Buzz Dynamics has been marked as Ext.-B/1 (with objection). He has further stated that he does not identify the said male person, but after seeing this occurrence, he went to mental trauma and thereafter he resigned from the post of IDBI on 18.05.2015 i.e. after around three years and thereafter he has not working in IDBI and presently he is unemployed. He has further claimed that his resignation dated 18.08.2015 sent to IDBI was accepted on 20.06.2016, which comprises of two sheets having the signature of DGM, H.R. Shrikant S. Tirpure, which has been marked as Ext.-C (with objection). He further proved Ext.-D marked (with objection) sent by IDBI through online ID that he is not working in IDBI since 13.07.2014 and resigned on 18.08.2015. He has also proved the information received through RTI on 28.09.2017 marked as Ext.-E (with objection). He has also stated that his wife has refused to establish physical relationship with him and has tortured her and further his wife has established physical relationship with unknown and outside person, hence the petitioner is not fit to be his wife. He has also stated that his wife is living in the house of her parents and neither she is ill nor studying and not got any children and she is giving tuition. He has stated that he was under treatment of Dr. A.K. Sinha and Dr. Amar for few months and proved the certificate of doctors dated 10.07.2014 and 25.07.2014, which have been marked for identification as Y and Y/1 (certificate of Dr. He has stated that he was under treatment of Dr. A.K. Sinha and Dr. Amar for few months and proved the certificate of doctors dated 10.07.2014 and 25.07.2014, which have been marked for identification as Y and Y/1 (certificate of Dr. A.K. Singh) and certificate of doctors dated 18.07.2014 and 05.02.2015 marked for identification as Y/2 and Y/3 (certificate of Dr. Amar). 34. During cross-examination, he has stated that his marriage was solemnized with his consent and it was not a negotiated marriage and he has passed MBA. He has stated that first meeting with the petitioner took place at Capital Hill Restaurant and on that date apart from him, his family members, his wife and her family members were present and he had also meet with the petitioner two days ago prior to their marriage at Kaveri Hotel. However, there was no engagement, but Tilak was done and marriage was performed on 19.04.2012 at BNR Hotel, Railway Station, Ranchi and they had not given anything to the petitioner. However, he has not seen the Videography and Photography of his marriage. He has denied for having photographs of the petitioner, which is in the video. However, he admitted that there was Videography and Photography of her marriage. He has denied the marriage with Sonu Kalra and for marrying with this petitioner against his wishes as he does not know Sonu Kalra. However, he admitted that his younger brother was married with Anshu Bhatia and she is ‘Sindhi’. He could not recall for taking leave in his office till 22.04.2012, but he had extended the leave. He asserted that the expenses of BNR Hotel, Ranchi were borne by his father, but he does know about the bill. Thereafter he joined the duty on 29.04.2012. However, he has stated that the petitioner has instituted a complaint case against them, which was read by him and she has alleged that his father has tried to do forcibly something against her wishes, while she was in her bedroom, but he went to her maike on 30.04.2012 by calling his brother on the ground of appearing in MA examination and has denied that his wife has left for make on 29.04.2012 itself. He also denied that his father went to the house of the petitioner to call her and his father had sought apology from her. He also denied that his father went to the house of the petitioner to call her and his father had sought apology from her. He has also stated that his father and mother took vidai on 14th -15th and he i.e. the opposite party no. 2 brought back the petitioner on 22/23.06.2012 to the house of his parents. Thereafter he never went to Maike of his wife. He admitted in Para-55 that he got installed CCTV Camera in his room in his two BHK House but for security purposes, but apart from his flat, there are three families, who are living in the flats in two Floors and he has taken the said flat on rent from the Bank in the year 2010. 35. He has denied that Mayank Tiwari and Dhiraj Verma were living with him in the said flat and has stated that Mayank Tiwari is his cousin, but does not live with him whereas the Dhiraj Verma is his friend, who is working in HDFC Bank and living in Noida whereas Mukesh is working in a Chemical Company. He further admitted that there are two bedrooms and one kitchen and one Dining Room in the house at Ranchi in his house and has one Government Vehicle in Ranchi and he has no other flat. However, there is no CCTV Camera installed in the house at Ranchi because a Darban is used to sit there and his Nanihal is in Bokaro and there is no house in the name of opposite party no. 2 and his father and he has got no flat in New Delhi. 36. He has denied the suggestion that as his wife-petitioner has alleged allegation of sexual harassment against his father and hence his father was conspiring to oust the petitioner. He further stated that he has complained about the occurrence on 16.06.2012 to Delhi Police in written and he has instituted a complaint on 20.11.2012 at Rajauri Garden Police Station on 20.11.2012, which is under investigation and no result has come till date (i.e. from the date of deposition of OPW-2 on 13.11.2017) and he has also attached complaint dated 20.11.2012, but he has not brought the said complaint dated 20.11.2012 in the present case, but it has been enclosed in the divorce case. He also could not say the name of person, who had come during his absence. He also could not say the name of person, who had come during his absence. He also could not say the name of boy with whom his wife was taking on 21.04.2012 in Para-63, 64 and 65 of his deposition. He has stated that father of his wife is a Joint Director in Statics Department and she has got one own brother and while his wife was talking with a boy then no voice was being heard and when he tried to talk on the said number, then he learnt a voice of a boy and who has disconnected the call, but he is not aware about the phone number of brother of his wife and he cannot identify the voice of the brother of his wife as he has heard much earlier and he cannot say that she used to talk with his father or his brother, but she used to disconnect the phone on his arrival. On being shown the certified copy of divorce case filed by him against his wife i.e. the petitioner bearing MTS No. 138 of 2015, he admitted to filed the said case under Section 13(1) (1-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act on 29.05.2013, but has denied the fact that he has not mentioned the ground of adultery in the said case. However, he is trying to incorporate the said ground, but he has not filed any petition for taking ground of adultery. However, he had filed a petition for amendment on the ground of cruelty. However, he is not aware of the amendment allowed on 06.08.2016. He also admitted that ‘Mediation’ was held twice between both the parties in the said MTS Case No. 138 /2015 and he had appeared physically, but he has denied to become ready to take his wife from the mediation centre on 07.08.2015 for restitution of conjugal rights. However, he has denied for taking his wife from the ‘Mediation Centre’ on 07.08.2015 without any influence. However, he also denied for ousting the petitioner as she has failed to live as per his wishes and he has denied for filing written information about the occurrence on 17.09.2015 before the Mediation Centre. However, he is not aware as to whether, he has given any information in writing before the Mediation Centre on 17.09.2015 and he does not remember the same. However, he is not aware as to whether, he has given any information in writing before the Mediation Centre on 17.09.2015 and he does not remember the same. He has also stated before the Court below for sometimes for restitution of conjugal right with his wife-applicant-petitioner. He admitted that the case filed in Delhi was brought to Ranchi and was dismissed in Ranch, which was filed as Mis. Case No. 35 of 2016. On being shown certified copy of Mis. Case No. 35 of 2016 at Para-7, he has stated that he is working on ‘Contract’ basis, but he does not work with such company “Social Ted” which is company, has been closed due to raid conducted by UP Government. However, he has joined company and worked for two days in November, 2016, but he could not remember the date and month for working in the Company. He further admitted that he was working in IDBI as an Assistant Manager at the time of his marriage and he has resigned from his job in the year 2015 in the month of August, 2015 and prior to this he has worked up to the year 2014 and when he was promoted and he was transferred to Jabalpur, but he had not joined there. He has denied the suggestion that he worked in Jabalpur on 11.07.2014 to 04.05.2015. On being shown Ext.-C (with objection) the witness i.e. OPW-2 admits that he has sent this letter to his AGM Manoj Kumar Malviya, who had accepted his resignation, then accepted by HR. Malviya has sent his resignation letter to HR. He admits that on 29.02.2016 Manoj Kumar Malviya has not accepted his resignation and had advised him to send hard copy of the resignation letter to his proper HR. He admitted that he has not disclosed this fact earlier that Malviya has not accepted his resignation. He admitted that his resignation was accepted on 20.06.2016, which appears from Ext.-D and Ext.-E (both marked with objection) and also admitted that his resignation will be accepted from 12.07.2014 after payment of certain dues accrued against him. He admitted that he is not marking attendance in system since 13.07.2014 i.e. Ext.-E and it is evident from the said letter that his resignation had not been accepted. He admitted that he is not marking attendance in system since 13.07.2014 i.e. Ext.-E and it is evident from the said letter that his resignation had not been accepted. He admitted that he is not suffering from any illness and has denied for not doing job to deprive the petitioner for paying maintenance. On being shown documents marked as X/1, this witness admitted that his Employee No. 108491 has been mentioned in serial no. 108 and his name is mentioned and date of joining is recorded as 28.07.2008 and his date of birth is mentioned as 03.02.1983 in document marked as X/1 and he has admitted in Delhi on the post of Manager and it has been mentioned as Manager Grade-B in the seniority list of Document as X/1. On being asked the question for leaving the job in two days in Misc. Case No. 35/2016 of his evidence, he failed to give any reply in Para-17, which has been completely left blank by PO. He has denied for joined the job in Social Trade before acceptance of his resignation in IDBI. He has shown ignorance for working in another company before resignation of first company as offence. He has also shown ignorance for servicing in Social Trade Company for six months on being shown Para-10 of deposition of Misc. Case No. 35/2016, he admitted for working in the company. He has admitted that his father and mother had returned to Ranchi on 09.06.2012. 37. He has denied that after returning of his father and mother, he forcibly used to administer drugs and medicine upon his wife-petitioner due to which she was mentally depressed. He has stated for extra-marital affair of his wife. However, he could not say any person of his muhulla had seen the unknown boy or not ? He further could not remember the mobile number of his wife in Para-140-143 of his deposition. He admitted to have obtained call details from the company and he obtained call details of several other persons, but he is not aware that obtaining call details from the company in illegal way is fraud or not ? He has denied for producing Videography through fraudulent activity. He admitted to have obtained call details from the company and he obtained call details of several other persons, but he is not aware that obtaining call details from the company in illegal way is fraud or not ? He has denied for producing Videography through fraudulent activity. He has stated that the certificate of Videography has been issued by Manish of Buzz Dynamics Noida Sector-35, but he is not aware the date when he has gone to take such certificate and he has seen Manish for the first time in the shop of computer. Manish is C.D. writer and also formats Laptops and he is doing all related work of hardware and software, but he is not aware about the Buzz Dynamics is a registered shop or not, but Manish is worker in the said shop and he is not aware that Manish is the director of the any company or Manish is Administrative Officer of any company. On being questioned, as to whether the Manish is a Forensic Expert, OPW-2 has stated that he is Data Expert. However, he has not seen the certificate of Manish for procuring/obtaining the data. He also admitted that shopkeeper issued certificate of data transfer. He has also stated that he got installed two camera in his wife room, but he has not installed the camera, rather camera was installed by shopkeeper, but he is not aware that how much cost has incurred as his father has suggested for installation of camera, but he does not remember the date for installation of this CCTV Camera. He denied the suggestion that after 29.04.2012, his father has given suggestion for installation the Camera as she has instituted a case of sexual harassment upon her father in-law. 38. However, this suggestion was given by his father face to face or by phone is not remembered by him. On being questioned, as to whether, his father has asked to install CCTV Camera in bedrooms, he replied that his father has not stated as to where Camera has to be installed. However, he installed the Camera on 20.05.2012, however he does not remember that his father was in Delhi on 20.05.2012 or not ? Thereafter he tried to resile from his earlier statement as stated that his father was not in New Delhi on 20.05.2012, rather he was in Ranchi. However, he installed the Camera on 20.05.2012, however he does not remember that his father was in Delhi on 20.05.2012 or not ? Thereafter he tried to resile from his earlier statement as stated that his father was not in New Delhi on 20.05.2012, rather he was in Ranchi. He has denied the suggestion that for installing four Camera. He also could not remember the date of identification number of CCTV Camera and could not remember the identity certificate of shopkeeper, who had handed over the DVR and for obtaining Data from DVR. He failed to say the date of handing over the DVR to shop after taking the petitioner to Ranchi and he could not say as to how many days he had handed over the DVR to the shop, but shopkeeper has given the certificate on the same date, he had given the DVR. He has also admitted that so long he did not bring the said DVR to the shopkeeper, the said DVR remained in his custody in working condition, but he has not operated the same, but he could not remember that its operation was closed after handing over the DVR to shopkeeper. He could not say that operation of DVR was used to be closed after one year or two years or five years earlier. He admitted that he had not handed over the CCTV footage to the police in November because at that time he had not obtained the data from the CD, but he has not handed over DVR to the police because the police has not demanded the DVR. Although, the police has come to his house for twice and thrice for enquiry. He has admitted that storage capacity of DVR is 500 GB, but he does not remember that there is storage capacity of 10 days in 500 GB DVR, which has four channels and then after ten days, one by one day data is deleted, but he is not aware that recording capacity is unlimited. 39. He has denied the suggestion that he has obtained recording as per his wishes from some machine DVR in his pen drive and for putting the said pen drive in computer and got prepared a CD and obtained a certificate from the shopkeeper. 39. He has denied the suggestion that he has obtained recording as per his wishes from some machine DVR in his pen drive and for putting the said pen drive in computer and got prepared a CD and obtained a certificate from the shopkeeper. He has stated that the shopkeeper has given a bill and certificate and he has filed the certificate of “Buzz Dynamics” of the DVD submitted before the Court and DVD was in two sets and one of two copies has been deposited in the Court and another copy has been handed over to him. He further admitted in Para-188 of his cross-examination that certificate of DVD does not contain the signature of his shopkeeper and even no identification has been given on the DVD by the person giving Certificate and shopkeeper has handed over the DVD in hand to him and the DVD has been deposited to the Court in an envelope and no certificate has been given by the shopkeeper for handing over the said DVD. He also admitted in Para-189 that neither the date has been mentioned on the Certificate nor date has been mentioned on the bill attached with the Certificate. He also admitted in Para-190 of his cross-examination that Ext.-B i.e. the Certificate of DVD does not contain any date whereas he admitted in Para-191 that date “13.01.2016” has been mentioned in the bill marked as Ext.-B/1. He also admitted that in Para-192, the bill has been issued after three years to the alleged occurrence. He also admitted in Para-193 that he is an Electronics and Communication Engineer, but he has denied that Computer is the main instrument of his subject. He also denied for having knowledge of computer while he was studying Electronics and Communication and stated that Electronics and Communication are the subject of computer. He denied that communication was not chapter of computer and he has passed exam from Gurughasidas University. However, he has admitted for using net through Computer and used its ID etc. He admitted for working through computer to the extent of 40 %. 40. On being questioned for not mentioning the number of Camera attached with DVR in the certificate deposited by him, he replied in negative that he does not remember the date. However, on being shown Certificate, the witness OPW-2 admits that he has four channels. He admitted for working through computer to the extent of 40 %. 40. On being questioned for not mentioning the number of Camera attached with DVR in the certificate deposited by him, he replied in negative that he does not remember the date. However, on being shown Certificate, the witness OPW-2 admits that he has four channels. He has denied for taking certificate of output. He further admitted that it has been mentioned in Para-3 of Ext.-B “Computer output was produced by the computer, but he does not remember that from which computer, output was produced. He could not say identification number vide Ext.-B as to from which computer this output was given. He has denied that Ext.-A, Ext.-B, Ext-B/1 were forged, fabricated and concocted. 41. On being shown document marked as Ext.-Y, the witness OPW-2 states that he could not understand as to what written on it. However, on being shown document marked as Ext.-Y/2, the witness states that it is written jaundice with fever. He admitted that Dr. Amar has given him fitness certificate on 25.10.2014, but he does not remember as to where he treated from Dr. Amar earlier or not ? He also admitted that he was treated by Dr. A.K. Sinha and Dr. Amar and Dr. A.K. Sinha had given fitness certificate on 10.7.2014, but he could not remember that Dr. Amar had given the same fitness certificate or not. He admitted that as per the document marked as Ext.-Y, he was medically fit on 10.07.2014, but he denied that he obtained this Certificate for depositing Mark-‘Y’ before his Employer. 42. He further stated that he has prepared the DVD of extramarital relation of two days in Para-227 and 228 of his evidence. However, Para-229 of his evidence cannot be mentioned as it amounts to vulgarity in recording of evidence of the witnesses. He admitted in Para-230-231 of his evidence during his cross- examination that his alleged allegation of 11.06.2012 and 16.06.2012 have been made after two years of occurrence. He stated on 23.06.2012 that he is not aware of the petitioner. However, Para-229 of his evidence cannot be mentioned as it amounts to vulgarity in recording of evidence of the witnesses. He admitted in Para-230-231 of his evidence during his cross- examination that his alleged allegation of 11.06.2012 and 16.06.2012 have been made after two years of occurrence. He stated on 23.06.2012 that he is not aware of the petitioner. During his further cross-examination, he admitted that after installation of CCTV Camera, his father had arrived in his house, but he had not informed his father as to where camera were installed, but he i.e. the father was aware that he i.e. OPW-2 has got installed the Camera, but he has not disclosed the fact of installation of Camera to his mother. He also admitted that between 17.05.2012 to 23.06.2012, the petitioner remained in his house and at that time he along with the petitioner had gone to the several places at Delhi and even to the house of his friends and he along with his wife and mother used to go there and he got acquainted his wife to his friends, but he does not remember the date as to when he had gone to such places. He also admitted that he has not informed his wife-petitioner for installing the Camera for security purposes or he wanted to protect this fact from her, so that she may not feel fear. He admitted that he used to sleep in bedroom having AC with his wife. 43. He admitted that there is no photography of any member of his family in this DVD and he has not handed over the DVD to the Court and his DVR used to record for 24 hours. However, he admitted that the recording which he filed before the Court, does not contain the recording of 24 hours. He also admitted in Para-243 that his maid used to arrive in the morning at 7.00 to 7.30 A. M. and 7.30 P. M. in the evening and she used to cut the vegetables, but she had not been shown in the photography as he had not obtained the photograph of the said period. He admitted that there is recording of 9.00 A.M. in the morning to 6.00 P.M. in the evening and it is not selected recording. He denied the fact for concealing the photographs of other family members of his house deliberately. He admitted that there is recording of 9.00 A.M. in the morning to 6.00 P.M. in the evening and it is not selected recording. He denied the fact for concealing the photographs of other family members of his house deliberately. He also admitted in Para-250 that he used to come to prepare food daily after 09.06.2012 and he also used to cook food in the morning and in the evening. Para-251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256 and 257 are the vulgarity of deposition recorded by PO the date of alleged incident dated 11.06.2012 and 16.06.2012 and as such, the same is not being mentioned here as it was the relationship of male and female. He admitted that at present he is giving Rs. 15,000/- to the petitioner. However, he has denied the suggestion that he used to commit sex with his wife and for preparing videography on the image of another boy by taking help of planation mechanically and which is well known to him being an engineer. 44. On being further cross-examined and on being questioned about his present living address, he stated that he is not living anywhere and he has no permanent place, but he has no outside address. He has also denied the suggestion for not giving the correct place of living/current address deliberately. He is not aware that as to whether the Court has taken cognizance upon him and his father on the complaint instituted by the applicant-petitioner upon them, but he has filed an application for bail. He has further stated that he is giving Rs. 15,000/- per month to the applicant-petitioner and the petitioner is giving tuition and also doing some work and he is stating this fact as he was informed by the petitioner during Mediation that she has completed her B.Ed. He admitted that the petitioner is his married wife and presently he is giving Rs. 15,000/- per month to her and both are living separately. However, he also admitted that he has not seen the petitioner giving tuition to anyone. He has further stated that he will examine Manish, who had given certificate to him. He has denied the suggestion for marrying with Sonu Karla and for giving physical and mental torture to the applicant-petitioner. 45. However, he also admitted that he has not seen the petitioner giving tuition to anyone. He has further stated that he will examine Manish, who had given certificate to him. He has denied the suggestion for marrying with Sonu Karla and for giving physical and mental torture to the applicant-petitioner. 45. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of OPW-2, it is evident that he has admitted his relationship with the petitioner on the one hand as his wife. He has also admitted that his father remained in his flat/home at New Delhi from 17.05.2012 to 09.06.2012 in Para-131 of his cross-examination and has stated that his father and mother left for Ranchi together and thereafter as per the case of the opposite party no. 2, the incident took place on 11.06.2012 and 16.06.2012 and for which he has made videography through CCTV Camera. He has also admitted in Para- 160 that his father was aware of installation of CCTV Camera in bedroom and he admitted that he had installed CCTV Camera around 20.05.2012 in Para-167 of his cross-examination. He has tried to mislead the Court by stating that he was present in Delhi, rather he was in Ranchi on 20.05.2012, although earlier he himself has stated that his father has arrived at New Delhi on 25.05.2012. He has also admitted during his evidence at Para-6 itself that his mother along with his wife i.e. the petitioner had arrived at his residence at New Delhi on 17.05.2012. OPW-2 has mainly alleged allegation of illicit relationship of the petitioner with unknown boy, but he has failed to disclose the name of the person of imposter. 46. Although it is important to notice here that OPW-2, Vikram Pandey has installed four CCTV Camera in his bedroom flat/residence, but he has produced the pictures and Videography of only two dates i.e. 11.06.2012 and 16.06.2012 of few minutes and other pictures are completely missing and except the face of the petitioner, even the person has not been identified by him. Installation of Camera inside at his bedroom and at other places of kitchen on the one hand and non-installation of CCTV Camera on the outside entrance door of his flat is significant to notice here. Installation of Camera inside at his bedroom and at other places of kitchen on the one hand and non-installation of CCTV Camera on the outside entrance door of his flat is significant to notice here. The installation of CCTV Camera in bedroom without the knowledge of the wife is a matter of grave illegality and has caused penetration in the virginity and privacy of the petitioner as any picture would cause embarrassment to her and has been recorded in the Videography by the OPW-2, which can be used for her embarrassment and for blackmailing her. He also admitted during his cross-examination at Para- 239, 240, 243 that the picture of maid, his father and mother are not seen. 47. It further transpires from the evidence that although he was aware of the videography of 11.06.2012 and 16.06.2012, but he has not disclosed during his entire examination in-chief as to when he learnt about the picture of Videography and then his wife has left Delhi on 20.06.2012. However, he himself admitted during his cross-examination at Para-61 that he had instituted the case in New Delhi at Rajauri Garden Police Station on 20.11.2012, but he is not aware of the result of the investigation in that case. Therefore it clearly shows that the opposite party no. 2 has very cunningly and in clandestine manner has taken sensitive photographs of the applicant-petitioner without her knowledge and consent and hence there is strong possibility that he can use the said sensitive photographs of the applicant –petitioner by making interpolation by way of plantation mechanically help or by any computerized devices to blackmail or coerce the petitioner. The manner in which he has stated that his evidence during his examination in-chief relating to vulgarity and obsence intimate scenes of male and female is very disturbing and a prudent normal man cannot think of even uttering the words in the open Court. 48. It further transpires that although the husband-O.P. No. 2 has stated that he will examine Manish i.e. the person, who has issued DVD, but the said Manish has not been examined on behalf of the husband-OPW-2 to support the said fact and as such, the Court can draw adverse inference against the husband-OPW-2 for non-examination of the said Manish, who has allegedly issued this Certificate, marked as Ext. -B. He also admitted during his cross-examination at Para-75 that matrimonial suit being MTS No. 138/15 has been filed in Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi, he has not taken the ground of adultery, rather he has taken the ground of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1) (1-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. He has also admitted that the case with regard to marriage, which was filed in New Delhi was transferred to Ranchi and the said case was dismissed in Ranchi and for restoring the same, he has filed Misc. Case No. 35/16 and he had himself admitted the said case i.e. Misc. Case No. 35/16 that he was working on contract basis in the company namely Social Trade, which is company at Noida. 49. So far as the documentary evidence is concerned, Ext-1 is the order dated 06.07.2015 passed in Appeal No. RTI 80/2015 by Umesh Jain i.e. First Appellate Authority, IDBI in which it has been mentioned that the opposite party no. 2, Vikram Pandey is posted in Jabalpur Branch of IDBI Bank. However, details of address cannot be given as it is interference in his privacy and has upheld the order passed by the CPIO. However, on the point of question at Para-2 (iv), he has directed the concerned CPIO to furnish such information to the applicant-petitioner. 50. Ext.-2 is the petition filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 on 29.08.2018 before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi for adjourning the case for evidence as he is working and residing at Delhi. 51. So far as the documentary evidence of OPW-2 is concerned, Ext-A is the DVD in one copy, however, the same has not been opened by the Court and has also not opened in the presence of the parties as details of which has already been narrated in the evidence of OPW-2 and which has also been stated by the OPW-1 i.e. the father of the opposite party no. 2 i.e. OPW-2. 52. Ext.-B (with objection) is a Certificate, which is said to be issued by “Buzz Dynamics” Shop No. 15, B12/B Market Sector- 34, Behind PNB ATM, Noida -201301 without having any dates. Ext-B/1 (marked with objection) is bill dated 13.01.2016 issued by the “BUZZ DYNAMICS” Shop No. 15, B12/B Market Sector-34, Behind PNB ATM, Noida -201301 with regard to DVR Data. 53. Ext-B/1 (marked with objection) is bill dated 13.01.2016 issued by the “BUZZ DYNAMICS” Shop No. 15, B12/B Market Sector-34, Behind PNB ATM, Noida -201301 with regard to DVR Data. 53. However, on both Ext.-B (marked with objection) and Ext.-B/1 (marked with objection) contain only the initial and it does not show the full name of and real name of the signatory on behalf of “BUZZ DYNAMICS” Shop No. 15, B12/B Market Sector-34, Behind PNB ATM, Noida -201301 and thus, the veracity of Ext.-B (marked with objection) and Ext.-B/1 (marked with objection) are completely in doubt as the person, who has signed Ext.-B (marked with objection), has not been examined and Ext.-B/1 (marked with objection) has also not been examined on behalf of the OPW-2 and as such the same cannot be relied upon as Ext.-B (marked with objection) and Ext.-B/1 (marked with objection) have not been legally proved and the authenticity of Ext.-B i.e. DVD of alleged sexual relationship of the applicant-petitioner with some unknown boy is highly doubtful and as such, it cannot be relied upon. 54. Ext.-C is the copy of Email with regard to initiation of departmental enquiry in reference to charge sheet dated 29.02.2016 bearing referring no. 2119 and it has been addressed by Manoj Kumar Malviya, Centre Head, RAC, IDBI Bank Ltd. Bhopal (M.P.) to Vikram Pandey i.e. the opposite party no. 2 by which Vikram Pandey i.e. the opposite party no. 2 has been advised to submit Hard Copy of his formal resignation letter immediately to your Branch Head or HR Department to your respective Zonal Office or Head Office. 55. Another Ext.-C (marked with objection) is the letter dated 18.08.2015 sent by Vikram Pandey i.e. the opposite party no. 2 to Shri Manoj Kumar Malviya, AGM/CH, RAC, Bhopal by which he has sent resignation letter and also for not attending department enquiry in reference to charge sheet dated 27.01.2015 bearing referring no. 2119. 56. Ext.-D (marked with objection) is the letter dated 20.06.2016 sent by DGM-HR to Vikram Pandey i.e. the opposite party no. 2 by which Vikram Pandey i.e. the opposite party no. 2 was relived of from the service of the IDBI Bank with effect from 12.07.2014 subject to recovery of Rs. 6,24,033.98/- as he has stooped attending the duty after 12.07.2014 without any proper approval or authorization from the Bank and for acting in breach of service conditions. 57. 2 by which Vikram Pandey i.e. the opposite party no. 2 was relived of from the service of the IDBI Bank with effect from 12.07.2014 subject to recovery of Rs. 6,24,033.98/- as he has stooped attending the duty after 12.07.2014 without any proper approval or authorization from the Bank and for acting in breach of service conditions. 57. Ext.-E is the letter dated 28.09.2017 sent by Shri Rajesh G. Rathod, Central Public Information Officer & General Manager-Human Resources to Vikram Pandey i.e. the opposite party no. 2 with regard to query in his service in which it has been stated that in the reply of query no. 1 that he is in the service of the Bank, but he has not marked attendance in the system since 13.07.2014. It has also been stated in reply to query nos. 2 and 3 that to the opposite party no. 2 that salary of Shri Pandey i.e. the opposite party no. 2 has been stopped with effect from 01.11.2014 on account of unauthorized absence. Although he has tendered his resignation vide his letter dated 18.08.2015 and he has not been relived from the service of the Bank due to non-clearance of dues amounting to Rs. 6.37 lacs. 58. Apart from this Document Y and Y/1 are the scanned copy of the certificate issued by the Dr. A.K. Sinha to opposite party no. 2 showing his treatment from 23.06.2014 to 10.07.2014 and another certificate dated 25.10.2014 by which it has been advised for three and half month for fever and jaundice under the treatment of Dr. A.K. Sinha and was advised rest. However, these documents Y and Y/1 have not been proved as Dr. A.K. Sinha and Dr. Amar have not been examined by the O.P. No. 2 and also it is not relevant to the facts of the present case as it is pertinent to the period of 23.06.2014 to 10.07.2014 and for subsequent period of another three and half months. Similar Documents marked as Y/2 and Y/3 respectively are the scanned copy of the certificate of Dr. Amar to Vikram Pandey i.e. O.P. No. 2 dated 18.07.2014 and 05.02.2015 respectively. Surprisingly, the O.P. No. 2-Vikram Pandey has been shown as working the Manager –IDBI Bank, Jabalpur in the document marked as Y/2. This document Y and Y/1 are also not relevant to the fact of the petitioner. 59. Amar to Vikram Pandey i.e. O.P. No. 2 dated 18.07.2014 and 05.02.2015 respectively. Surprisingly, the O.P. No. 2-Vikram Pandey has been shown as working the Manager –IDBI Bank, Jabalpur in the document marked as Y/2. This document Y and Y/1 are also not relevant to the fact of the petitioner. 59. Documents marked as ‘X’ by the petitioner is the photocopy of the salary slip of Vikram Pandey for the month of July, 2014 showing his gross salary as Rs. 61,293/- (Rupees Sixty One Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Three). Document marked as X/I is the scanned copy of the seniority list of the opposite party no. 2 showing his name at 3161 on 11.07.2014. The document marked as X/2 is faint and deep black and read with difficulty. Office of the learned Court below should have remained careful in future while sending scanned copy as it is completely blur and in dark condition. 60. It further transpires that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi has relied upon the CD marked as Ext.-A and has held that she was living in adultery although, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment reported in Civil Appeal No. 4226 of 2012 in the case of Anvar P.V. vs. P.V. Basheer and Others dated 18.09.2014 by which it has been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that any electronic evidence, which has not been supported by the certificate as envisages under Section 65(B)(4) of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be looked into by the Court. Even the learned Court below has incorrectly distinguished the judgment passed in Safiuddin vs. Himchal Pradesh on the said point. However, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi has held that the petitioner was seen with the outsider in physical intimacy and compromise sexual position, which amounts to adultery for a married woman. The learned Court below has held issue no .2. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi has dismissed the O.S. No. 236 of 2016, which was filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal right. 61. It is evident from the record that the petitioner was married with the opposite party no. 2 on 19.04.2012 in Ranchi and she was in her matrimonial home till 29.04.2012. 61. It is evident from the record that the petitioner was married with the opposite party no. 2 on 19.04.2012 in Ranchi and she was in her matrimonial home till 29.04.2012. Thereafter she was taken to New Delhi along with her mother in-law and husband on 17.05.2012 and even her father in-law arrived New Delhi on 23.05.2012 and her father in-law and mother in-law are said to have been returned at Ranchi on 09.06.2012 living the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 in the house, then it is difficult to assume that father and mother of the opposite party no. 2 were not aware with regard to installation of four CCTV Camera by the opposite party no. 2 including some camera in the bedroom of the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 and concealment of installation of CCTV Camera by the husband and father in-law and mother in-law of the petitioner amounts to infringement of her privacy, which is said to be right of privacy has to be considered as one of the fundamental right of every citizen. Even after returning of the father in-law and mother in-law on 09.06.2012, the incident is alleged to have taken place on 11.06.2012, 12.06.2012 and 16.06.2012 and which appears to be absurd as the alleged incident of 11.06.2012, 12.06.2012, 14.06.2012 and 16.06.2012 appears to have been prepared by the opposite party no. 2 in connivance with the service provider “Buzz Dynamics” Noida and they remained silent for four years, although the opposite party no. 2 himself is a Electronics Engineer and is a well qualified technical person, who is well versed in electronics and computer as both electronic and computer are interlinked now a days and it cannot be assumed that opposite party no. 2 has no knowledge of computer now a days as he himself is an Electronic Engineer. There appears for no time of the petitioner to indulge into such an activity as she was constantly under watch and supervision of her mother in-law and father in-law from 17.05.2012 to 09.06.2012 and even maid, who used to come to the residence of the opposite party no. 2 for preparing breakfast and meal. Thereafter the OPW-2 appears to have silently sent back the petitioner to her maike on 25.06.2012. The opposite party no. 2 for preparing breakfast and meal. Thereafter the OPW-2 appears to have silently sent back the petitioner to her maike on 25.06.2012. The opposite party no. 2 may be aggrieved by the fact that the petitioner has alleged certain allegation of sexual harassment of her father in-law i.e. the father of the opposite party no. 2, but it does not mean that husband-opposite party no. 2 will indulge into such an illegal act to take retaliation from the petitioner to the extent of damaging her entire personality in the society. 62. Therefore, in view of the discussion made above, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi committed grave illegality by rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground of adultery as alleged by the O.P. No. 2. Thus the judgment dated 25.06.2019 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in the Original Maintenance Case No. 80 of 2014 and Original Suit No. 236 of 2016 resulted into grave injustice and as such, the judgment dated 25.06.2019 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in the Original Maintenance Case No. 80 of 2014 and Original Suit No. 236 of 2016 is liable to set aside. 63. It is evident from the document marked as Ext.-X for its identification is document of monthly salary of the opposite party no. 2-Vikram Pandey, which was approximately Rs. 61,293/- in the month of July, 2014. 64. It has been held in the case of Sunita Kachwaha and Others vs. Anil Kachwaha, 2014 (16) SCC 715 that the wife is entitled for 1/4 of the maintenance. 65. It has been held in Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai, (2008) SCC 316 at paragraph 8, as follows: “Para 8: In and illustrative case where the wife was surviving by begging, it would not amount to her ability to maintain herself. It can also be not said that he wife has been capable of earning but she was not making an effort to earn. Whether the deserted wife was unable to maintain herself, has to be decided on the basis of the material placed on record. Where the personal income of the wife is insufficient she can claim maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. The test is whether the wife is in a position to maintain herself in the way she was used to in the place of her husband. Where the personal income of the wife is insufficient she can claim maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. The test is whether the wife is in a position to maintain herself in the way she was used to in the place of her husband. In Bhagwan Dutt vs. Kamla Devi it was observed that wife should be in a position to maintain a standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious but what is consistent with status of a family. The expression “unable to maintain herself” does not mean that the wife must be absolutely destitute before she can apply for maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C.” 66. It has been held in the case of Sunita Kachwaha and Others vs. Anil Kachwaha, 2014 (16) SCC 715 at Para 7, 8 and 10 as follows: “Para-7: Inability to maintain herself is the pre-condition for grant of maintenance to the wife. The wife must positively aver and prove that she is unable to maintain herself, in addition to the fact that her husband has sufficient means to maintain her and that he has neglected to maintain her. In her evidence, the appellant-wife has stated that only due to help of her retired parents and brothers, she is able to maintain herself and her daughters. Where the wife states that she has great hardships in maintaining herself and the daughters, while her husband’s economic condition is quite good, the wife would be entitled to maintenance. Para-8: The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant-wife is well qualified, having post graduate degree in Geography and working as a teacher in Jabalpur and also working in Health Department. Therefore, she has income of her own and needs no financial support from respondent. In our considered view, merely because the appellant-wife is a qualified post graduate, it would not be sufficient to hold that she is in a position to maintain herself. Insofar as her employment as a teacher in Jabalpur, nothing was placed on record before the Family Court or in the High Court to prove her employment and her earnings. In any event, merely because the wife was earning something, it would not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance. Para-10: The impugned order of the High Court dated 26.06.2008 passed in Criminal Revision No. 2303/2007 is set aside and this appeal is allowed. In any event, merely because the wife was earning something, it would not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance. Para-10: The impugned order of the High Court dated 26.06.2008 passed in Criminal Revision No. 2303/2007 is set aside and this appeal is allowed. The respondent is directed to pay the maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the appellant-wife as ordered by the Family Court and also pay the arrears of maintenance payable to the appellant-wife within the period of eight weeks.” 67. It has been held in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, 2017 (14) SCC 200 at paragraph 15, as follows: “Para 15: The review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC came to be filed by the respondent wife pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court when the earlier order dated 2-2-20152 awarding a maintenance of Rs 16,000 to the respondent wife as well as to her minor son was under challenge before this Court. As pointed out by the High Court, in February 2015, the appellant husband was getting a net salary of Rs 63,842 after deduction of Rs 24,000 on account of GPF and Rs 12,000 towards income tax. In February 2016, the net salary of the appellant is stated to be Rs 95.527. Following Kulbhushan Kumar vs. Raj Kumari, in this case, it was held that 25% of the husband's net salary would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance to the respondent wife. The amount of permanent alimony awarded to the wife must be befitting the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay maintenance. Maintenance is always dependent on the factual situation of the case and the court would be justified in moulding the claim for maintenance passed on various factors. Since in February 2016, the net salary of the husband was Rs 95,000 per month, the High Court was justified in enhancing the maintenance amount. However, since the appellant has also got married second time and has a child from the second marriage, in the interest of justice, we think it proper to reduce the amount of maintenance of Rs. 23,000 to Rs 20.000 per month as maintenance to the respondent wife and son.” 68. It has been held in the case of Dr. However, since the appellant has also got married second time and has a child from the second marriage, in the interest of justice, we think it proper to reduce the amount of maintenance of Rs. 23,000 to Rs 20.000 per month as maintenance to the respondent wife and son.” 68. It has been held in the case of Dr. Swapan Kumar Banerjee vs. State of West Bengal and Another, 2020 (19) SCC 342 , that even a wife who has been divorced on ground of desertion is entitled to claimed maintenance and it has been held at Para 5 and 7 which are as follows: “Para 5: Thereafter, in Rohtash Singh vs. Ramendri this Court took a similar view: (SCCP 184, Para 11) 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that once a decree for divorce was passed against the respondent and marital relations between the petitioner and the respondent came to an end, the mutual rights. Duties and obligations should also come to an end. He pleaded that in this situation, the obligation of the petitioner to maintain a woman with whom all relations came to an end should also be treated to have come to an end. This plea, as we have already indicated above, cannot be accepted as a woman has two distinct rights for maintenance. As a wife, she is entitled to maintenance unless she suffers from any of the disabilities indicated in Section 125(4). In another capacity, namely, as a divorced woman, she is again entitled to claim maintenance from the person of whom she was once the wife. A woman after divorce becomes a destitute. If she cannot maintain herself or remains unmarried, the man who was once her husband continues to be under a statutory duty and obligation to provide maintenance to her.” “Para 7: No doubt, as urged by Mr. Debal Banerjee. Explanation II to Section 125 9 CrPC by deeming fiction includes a divorced woman to be a wife and, therefore, a woman who has been divorced by her husband can still claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The question is how we should read the provisions of sub-section (4) in this regard, especially when we deal with those women, against whom a decree for divorce has been obtained on the ground that they have deserted their husband. The question is how we should read the provisions of sub-section (4) in this regard, especially when we deal with those women, against whom a decree for divorce has been obtained on the ground that they have deserted their husband. Once the relationship of marriage comes to an end, the woman obviously is not under any obligation to live with her former husband. The deeming fiction of the divorced wife being treated as a wife can only be read for the limited purpose for grant of maintenance and the deeming fiction cannot be stretched to the illogical extent that the divorced wife is under a compulsion to live with the ex-husband. The husband cannot urge that he can divorce his wife on the ground that she has deserted him and then deny maintenance which should otherwise be payable to her on the ground that event after divorce she is not willing to live with him. Therefore, we find no merit in the contention of Mr. Debal Banerjee.” 69. It is well settled that a husband is duty bound to maintain his wife and this has been settled also in the judgment rendered in the case of Rajneesh vs. Neha and Another, 2021 (2) SCC 324 . 70. It has been held in the case of Rajneesh vs. Neha and Another, 2021 (2) SCC 324 at Para-77, 78, 79, 80, 112 and 113, which are as follows: “Para-77: The objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded. Para-78: The factors which would weigh with the court inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non-working wife. [Refer to Jasbir Kaur Sehgal vs. District Judge, Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7 , Vinny Parmvir Parmar vs. Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 290] Para-79: In Manish Jain vs. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 712 this Court held that the financial position of the parents of the applicant wife, would not be material while determining the quantum of maintenance. An order of interim maintenance is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim has no independent income, sufficient for her or his support. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual situations; the court should mould the claim for maintenance based on various factors brought before it. Para-80: On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependent family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able-bodied and has educational qualifications. [Reema Salkan vs. Sumer Singh Salkan, (2019) 12 SCC 303 : (2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 596 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 339] Para-112: In Badshah vs. Urmila Badshah Godse, (2014) 1 SCC 188 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 51, the Supreme Court was considering the interpretation of Section 125 CrPC. The Court held : (SCC p. 196, Para 13) “13.3. … purposive interpretation needs to be given to the provisions of Section 125 CrPC. While dealing with the application of a destitute wife or hapless children or parents under this provision, the Court is dealing with the marginalised sections of the society. The purpose is to achieve “social justice” which is the constitutional vision, enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The Preamble to the Constitution of India clearly signals that we have chosen the democratic path under the rule of law to achieve the goal of securing for all its citizens, justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. It specifically highlights achieving their social justice. Therefore, it becomes the bounden duty of the courts to advance the cause of social justice. While giving interpretation to a particular provision, the court is supposed to bridge the gap between the law and society.” Para-113: It has therefore become necessary to issue directions to bring about uniformity and consistency in the orders passed by all courts, by directing that maintenance be awarded from the date on which the application was made before the court concerned. The right to claim maintenance must date back to the date of filing the application, since the period during which the maintenance proceedings remained pending is not within the control of the applicant.” 71. It has been held in the case of Abhilasha vs. Parkash and Others, (2021) 13 SCC 99 , at Para 27 to 31, which are as follows: “Para-27: Muslim Law also recognises the obligation of father to maintain his daughters until they are married. It has been held in the case of Abhilasha vs. Parkash and Others, (2021) 13 SCC 99 , at Para 27 to 31, which are as follows: “Para-27: Muslim Law also recognises the obligation of father to maintain his daughters until they are married. Referring to Mulla’s Principle of Mohammedan Law, this Court in State of Haryana and Others vs. Smt. Santra, (2000) 5 SCC 182 in paragraph 40 held: (SCC p. 196) “40. Similarly, under the Mohammedan Law, a father is bound to maintain his sons until they have attained the age of puberty. He is also bound to maintain his daughters until they are married. [See: Mulla's Principles of Mohammedan Law (19th Edn.) Page 300]” Para-28: Section 20(3) of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 is nothing but recognition of principles of Hindu Law regarding maintenance of children and aged parents. Section 20(3) now makes it statutory obligation of a Hindu to maintain his or her daughter, who is unmarried and is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property. Para-29: Section 20 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 cast a statutory obligation on a Hindu to maintain his daughter who is unmarried and unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property. As noted above, Hindu Law prior to enactment of Act, 1956 always obliged a Hindu to maintain unmarried daughter, who is unable to maintain herself. The obligation, which is cast on the father to maintain his unmarried daughter, can be enforced by her against her father, if she is unable to maintain herself by enforcing her right under Section 20. Para-30: We may also notice another judgment of this Court in Noor Saba Khatoon vs. Mohd. Quasim, (1997) 6 SCC 233 , which was a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. A Muslim wife with her two daughters and a son filed an application claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The trial court allowed the maintenance to the wife and children from her husband. The husband after divorcing the wife filed application in the trial court seeking modification of the order in view of the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The trial court modified the order insofar as the grant of maintenance of wife was concerned but maintained the order of maintenance to each of the three minor children. The trial court modified the order insofar as the grant of maintenance of wife was concerned but maintained the order of maintenance to each of the three minor children. The husband challenged the order by means of revision, which was dismissed by the Revisional Court. An application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed in the High Court. The High Court accepted the claim of husband and relying on provision of Section 3(1)(b) of the Act, 1986 held that a Muslim wife is entitled to claim maintenance from her previous husband for her children only for a period of two years from the date of birth of the child concerned. The High Court held that minor children were not entitled for maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. A special leave to appeal was filed questioning the judgment. This Court dealing with Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as Act, 1986 held that effect of a beneficial legislation like Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed to be defeated except through clear provisions of a statute. This Court held that there is no conflict between the two provisions. Para-31:- This Court noticed the provisions of Section 3 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 and Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is relevant to refer to the following observations made by this Court in paragraph 7 of the above judgment: (Noor Saba Khatoon Case, SCC pp. 238-239) “7....Under Section 125, CrPC the maintenance of the children is obligatory on the father (irrespective of his religion) and as long as he is in a position to do so and the children have no independent means of their own, it remains his absolute obligation to provide for them. Insofar as children born of Muslim parents are concerned there is nothing in Section 125 CrPC which exempts a Muslim father from his obligation to maintain the children. These provisions are not affected by Clause (b) of Section 3(1) of the 1986 Act and indeed it would be unreasonable, unfair, inequitable and even preposterous to deny the benefit of Section 125 CrPC to the children only on the ground that they are born of Muslim parents. The effect of a beneficial legislation like Section 125 CrPC, cannot be allowed to be defeated except through clear provisions of a statute. The effect of a beneficial legislation like Section 125 CrPC, cannot be allowed to be defeated except through clear provisions of a statute. We do not find manifestation of any such intention in the 1986 Act to take away the independent rights of the children to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC where they are minor and are unable to maintain themselves. A Muslim father's obligation, like that of a Hindu father, to maintain his minor children as contained in Section 125 CrPC is absolute and is not at all affected by Section 3 (1)(b) of the 1986 Act.” (Emphasis in original) 72. It further reveals that even the learned Court below wrongly applied the judgment rendered in the case of Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer and Others, 2014 (10) SCC 473 and it also supports the case of the petitioner that an electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under Section 65B are satisfied. Thus, in the case of CD, VCD, chip, etc., the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. 73. It has been held in the case of Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer and Others, 2014 (10) SCC 473 , at Para 14-22 as follows: “Para-14: Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record under the Evidence Act, in view of Sections 59 and 65A, can be proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65B. Section 65B deals with the admissibility of the electronic record. The purpose of these provisions is to sanctify secondary evidence in electronic form, generated by a computer. It may be noted that the Section starts with a non obstante clause. Thus, notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer shall be deemed to be a document only if the conditions mentioned under sub-section (2) are satisfied, without further proof or production of the original. The very admissibility of such a document, i.e., electronic record which is called as computer output, depends on the satisfaction of the four conditions under Section 65B(2). The very admissibility of such a document, i.e., electronic record which is called as computer output, depends on the satisfaction of the four conditions under Section 65B(2). Following are the specified conditions under Section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act: (i) The electronic record containing the information should have been produced by the computer during the period over which the same was regularly used to store or process information for the purpose of any activity regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of that computer. (ii) The information of the kind contained in electronic record or of the kind from which the information is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity. (iii) During the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly and that even if it was not operating properly for some time, the break or breaks had not affected either the record or the accuracy of its contents. (iv) The information contained in the record should be a reproduction or derivation from the information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity. Para-15: Under Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act, if it is desired to give a statement in any proceedings pertaining to an electronic record, it is permissible provided the following conditions are satisfied: (a) There must be a certificate which identifies the electronic record containing the statement. (b) The certificate must describe the manner in which the electronic record was produced. (c) The certificate must furnish the particulars of the device involved in the production of that record. (d) The certificate must deal with the applicable conditions mentioned under Section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act. (e) The certificate must be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device. Para-16: It is further clarified that the person need only to state in the certificate that the same is to the best of his knowledge and belief. Most importantly, such a certificate must accompany the electronic record like computer printout, Compact Disc (CD), Video Compact Disc (VCD), pen drive, etc., pertaining to which a statement is sought to be given in evidence, when the same is produced in evidence. Most importantly, such a certificate must accompany the electronic record like computer printout, Compact Disc (CD), Video Compact Disc (VCD), pen drive, etc., pertaining to which a statement is sought to be given in evidence, when the same is produced in evidence. All these safeguards are taken to ensure the source and authenticity, which are the two hallmarks pertaining to electronic record sought to be used as evidence. Electronic records being more susceptible to tampering, alteration, transposition, excision, etc. without such safeguards, the whole trial based on proof of electronic records can lead to travesty of justice. Para-17: Only if the electronic record is duly produced in terms of Section 65B of the Evidence Act, the question would arise as to the genuineness thereof and in that situation, resort can be made to Section 45A - opinion of examiner of electronic evidence. Para-18: The Evidence Act does not contemplate or permit the proof of an electronic record by oral evidence if requirements under Section 65B of the Evidence Act are not complied with, as the law now stands in India. Para-19: It is relevant to note that Section 69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 (PACE) dealing with evidence on computer records in the United Kingdom was repealed by Section 60 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act, 1999. Computer evidence hence must follow the common law rule, where a presumption exists that the computer producing the evidential output was recording properly at the material time. The presumption can be rebutted if evidence to the contrary is adduced. In the United States of America, under Federal Rule of Evidence, reliability of records normally go to the weight of evidence and not to admissibility. Para-20: Proof of electronic record is a special provision introduced by the IT Act amending various provisions under the Evidence Act. The very caption of Section 65A of the Evidence Act, read with Sections 59 and 65B is sufficient to hold that the special provisions on evidence relating to electronic record shall be governed by the procedure prescribed under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. That is a complete code in itself. Being a special law, the general law under Sections 63 and 65 has to yield. That is a complete code in itself. Being a special law, the general law under Sections 63 and 65 has to yield. Para-21: In State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu, a two-Judge Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider an issue on production of electronic record as evidence. While considering the printouts of the computerized records of the calls pertaining to the cellphones, it was held at Paragraph-150 as follows: (SCC p. 714) “150. According to Section 63, secondary evidence means and includes, among other things, “copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies”. Section 65 enables secondary evidence of the contents of a document to be adduced if the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable. It is not in dispute that the information contained in the call records is stored in huge servers which cannot be easily moved and produced in the court. That is what the High Court has also observed at Para 276. Hence, printouts taken from the computers/servers by mechanical process and certified by a responsible official of the service-providing company can be led in evidence through a witness who can identify the signatures of the certifying officer or otherwise speak of the facts based on his personal knowledge. Irrespective of the compliance with the requirements of Section 65-B, which is a provision dealing with admissibility of electronic records, there is no bar to adducing secondary evidence under the other provisions of the Evidence Act, namely, Sections 63 and 65. It may be that the certificate containing the details in sub-section (4) of Section 65-B is not filed in the instant case, but that does not mean that secondary evidence cannot be given even if the law permits such evidence to be given in the circumstances mentioned in the relevant provisions, namely, Sections 63 and 65.” It may be seen that it was a case where a responsible official had duly certified the document at the time of production itself. The signatures in the certificate were also identified. That is apparently in compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The signatures in the certificate were also identified. That is apparently in compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. However, it was held that irrespective of the compliance with the requirements of Section 65B, which is a special provision dealing with admissibility of the electronic record, there is no bar in adducing secondary evidence, under Sections 63 and 65, of an electronic record. Para-22: The evidence relating to electronic record, as noted herein before, being a special provision, the general law on secondary evidence under Section 63 read with Section 65 of the Evidence Act shall yield to the same. Generalia specialibus non derogant, special law will always prevail over the general law. It appears, the court omitted to take note of Sections 59 and 65A dealing with the admissibility of electronic record. Sections 63 and 65 have no application in the case of secondary evidence by way of electronic record; the same is wholly governed by Sections 65A and 65B. To that extent, the statement of law on admissibility of secondary evidence pertaining to electronic record, as stated by this court in Navjot Sandhu case (supra), does not lay down the correct legal position. It requires to be overruled and we do so. An electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under Section 65B are satisfied. Thus, in the case of CD, VCD, chip, etc., the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible.” 74. It has been held in the case of Shafhi Mohammad vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, 2018 (2) SCC 801 at Para 6 as follows: “Para-6: Since we find that at the ground level these measures have not been fully adopted, we direct the Home Secretary, Government of India to ascertain from different investigating agencies as to how far much measures can be adopted and what further steps be taken to make use of the above technology for effective investigation and crime prevention.” 75. It has been held in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Others, 2020 (7) SCC 1 at Para-52, 58, 59, 60, and 61 as follows: “Para-52: We may hasten to add that Section 65B does not speak of the stage at which such certificate must be furnished to the Court. In Anvar P.V. (supra), this Court did observe that such certificate must accompany the electronic record when the same is produced in evidence. We may only add that this is so in cases where such certificate could be procured by the person seeking to rely upon an electronic record. However, in cases where either a defective certificate is given, or in cases where such certificate has been demanded and is not given by the concerned person, the Judge conducting the trial must summon the person/persons referred to in Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, and require that such certificate be given by such person/persons. This, the trial Judge ought to do when the electronic record is produced in evidence before him without the requisite certificate in the circumstances aforementioned. This is, of course, subject to discretion being exercised in civil cases in accordance with law, and in accordance with the requirements of justice on the facts of each case. When it comes to criminal trials, it is important to keep in mind the general principle that the accused must be supplied all documents that the prosecution seeks to rely upon before commencement of the trial, under the relevant sections of the CrPC. Para-58: In Kundan Singh (supra), a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court held: (SCC Online Del Para 50) 50. Anwar P.V. (supra) partly overruled the earlier decision of the Supreme Court on the procedure to prove electronic records in Navjot Sandhu (supra), holding that Section 65B is a specific provision relating to the admissibility of electronic records and, therefore, production of a certificate under Section 65B(4) is mandatory. Anwar P.V. (supra) does not state or hold that the said certificate cannot be produced in exercise of powers of the trial court under Section 311 Cr.P.C or, at the appellate stage under Section 391 Cr.P.C. Evidence Act is a procedural law and in view of the pronouncement in Anwar P.V. (supra) partly overruling Navjot Sandhu (supra), the prosecution may be entitled to invoke the aforementioned provisions, when justified and required. Of course, it is open to the court/presiding officer at that time to ascertain and verify whether the responsible officer could issue the said certificate and meet the requirements of Section 65B.” Para-59: Subject to the caveat laid down in paragraphs 50 and 54 above, the law laid down by these two High Courts has our concurrence. So long as the hearing in a trial is not yet over, the requisite certificate can be directed to be produced by the learned Judge at any stage, so that information contained in electronic record form can then be admitted, and relied upon in evidence. Para-60: It may also be seen that the person who gives this certificate can be anyone out of several persons who occupy a ‘responsible official position’ in relation to the operation of the relevant device, as also the person who may otherwise be in the ‘management of relevant activities’ spoken of in Sub-section (4) of Section 65B. Considering that such certificate may also be given long after the electronic record has actually been produced by the computer, Section 65B(4) makes it clear that it is sufficient that such person gives the requisite certificate to the “best of his knowledge and belief” (Obviously, the word “and” between knowledge and belief in Section 65B(4) must be read as “or” as a person cannot testify to the best of his knowledge and belief at the same time).” 76. Therefore, it is evident that in the above case, the Trial Judge i.e. the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi failed to summon the person/persons referred in Section 65 (B)/4 of the Evidence Act. The Presiding Officer, i.e. the learned Court below should verify as to whether the responsible officer could issue the said certificate and meet the requirements of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. However, the learned Court below failed to exercise its power and has admitted Ext.-A, DVD improperly, which has resulted into grave miscarriage of justice. 77. Learned Court below has failed to take notice that opposite party no. 2 had not produced the Four (04) original CCTV Camera in which it has been alleged that photographs of the petitioner alongwith some unknown persons have been recorded and as such, in absence of original electronic records i.e. CCTV Camera as defined under Section 2 (1) of IT Act, the impugned judgment is illegal. 78. 2 had not produced the Four (04) original CCTV Camera in which it has been alleged that photographs of the petitioner alongwith some unknown persons have been recorded and as such, in absence of original electronic records i.e. CCTV Camera as defined under Section 2 (1) of IT Act, the impugned judgment is illegal. 78. Although law laid down in the case of Shafhi Mohammad vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2018 (2) SCC 801 is not considered to be good law by the judgment reported in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Others, 2020 (7) SCC 1 , but both the above judgments support the case of the wife-petitioner. 79. It also transpires from the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner that the she has filed Complaint Case No. 2052 of 2013 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi against her husband i.e. Vikram Pandey and other in-laws for committing the offences punishable for the offence under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act for torturing and assaulting and demand of dowry against the opposite party no. 2 and his family members. 80. Although pleading of this Criminal Revision Application is defective as prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner by the learned counsel only to set aside the impugned order dated 25.06.2019 and they have not prayed for grant of maintenance. However, technicality should not stand in the way in the administration of justice as it is claim on behalf of the petitioner before the learned Court below for grant of maintenance of Rs. 75,000/- per month towards her maintenance including medical etc. Even during pendency of the said maintenance case vide order dated 01.02.2016, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi had passed the order for interim maintenance to the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month and the opposite party no. 2 was paying the said amount to the petitioner and which has also come during the evidence of the petitioner as well as the opposite party no. 2. 81. 15,000/- per month and the opposite party no. 2 was paying the said amount to the petitioner and which has also come during the evidence of the petitioner as well as the opposite party no. 2. 81. Hence, even if the specific prayer has not been made in this Criminal Revision Application by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relating to grant of maintenance amount, this Court, after considering the hardship and mental agony of the petitioner, is inclined to grant maintenance amount of the petitioner on the basis of document and salary/monthly income and also evidence led on behalf of the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2. 82. It is evident that the father of the opposite party no. 2 is Chief Conservator of Forest i.e. in short C.C.F. and has been pleaded by the petitioner in her maintenance application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and even OPW-1, Keshav Prasad Pandey i.e. the father of the opposite party no. 2 has admitted that he is a Government Servant and working in Forest Department. 83. In view of the discussion made above, the impugned order dated 25.06.2019 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in the Original Maintenance Case No. 80 of 2014 is set aside and the petitioner-Anupama Pandey @ Anupma Kumari will be entitled for maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month from the date of filing of application by way of interim maintenance. The payment made earlier by the opposite party no. 2- Vikram Pandey shall be adjusted and arrears of maintenance will be paid by the opposite party no. 2-Vikram Pandey within a period of four months, failing which, the petitioner will be at liberty to take suitable steps for recovery of the same in accordance with law from the date of production/receipt of a copy of this order. 84. Apart from this, it is clearly disturbing that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi has not properly exercised its discretion and has allowed the husband-opposite party no. 2 to display DVD/Photography of CCTV footage, which were allegedly said to be for the period of 11.06.2012, 12.06.2012, 14.06.2012 and 16.06.2012 in the open Court, which infringes the right of privacy of the petitioner-wife. Vulgarity and obscenity is apparent while recording the evidence of the opposite party no. 2, which could have been avoided by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi. Vulgarity and obscenity is apparent while recording the evidence of the opposite party no. 2, which could have been avoided by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi ought to have simply referred that the parties were seen in compromise position and ought not to have described the portion of the human body particularly on the person of the wife-petitioner. Hence, this Court is constrained to observe that apart from entitlement to Rs. 15,000/- per month towards the maintenance amount to the petitioner from the opposite party no. 2, the petitioner, if so advised, may in addition take steps for grant of compensation for infringement of her privacy for showing the vulgar pictures during display before the learned Court below and for interpolation of her Video images prepared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 with the help of “Buzz Dynamics” in accordance with law. 85. Accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 1149 of 2019 is allowed, with the observations and directions mentioned above. 86. Let a copy of this order sent to the learned Court below at once by the Office.