JUDGMENT : P. M. RAVAL, J. 1. The applicant before this Court is for challenging the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Karjan, District – Vadodara, dated 23.12.2025 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.118 of 2024, whereby the application filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the present applicant – wife came to be rejected mainly on the ground of adultery. 2. The factual matrix of the case in nutshell are as follow: 2.1. The applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent No.2. The marriage between the applicant and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 20.05.2002 at Karjan, District Vadodara, in accordance with Maharashtrian rites and customary ceremonies. After marriage, the applicant joined the matrimonial home and cohabited with respondent No.2 as his wife. At the time of marriage, the applicant’s parents, according to their financial capacity and social status, gave gold ornaments, household articles, furniture, clothes and other customary gifts. The applicant also carried her streedhan to her matrimonial home. 2.2. Out of the wedlock, two children were born, namely a daughter, Khushboo (now married and residing separately), and a son, Meet, aged about 15 years, presently residing with respondent No.2. The applicant is uneducated and not conversant with the operation of smartphone or messaging applications. Taking undue advantage of the same, Jaydeep, nephew of respondent No.2, allegedly used the applicant’s mobile phone and communicated with an unknown person. Thereafter, respondent No.2 and his family members levelled allegations against the character of the applicant. The applicant has consistently denied authorship of any such alleged chats. On the basis of the aforesaid unproven allegations, the applicant was subjected to mental and physical cruelty. The atmosphere in the matrimonial home became hostile and humiliating for the applicant. Being unable to tolerate the same, the applicant attempted to commit suicide by consuming poisonous medicine; however, she survived by sheer luck. 2.3. On 23.05.2023, the applicant was travelling from Surat to Maharashtra to visit her sister-in-law. The bus ticket was booked by the respondent No.2’s cousin, who himself came to board the applicant onto the bus. While on the bus, an unknown man, whom the applicant did not, know, was made to sit beside her by the bus conductor, stating that the said person would get down at Bardoli. The bus ticket was booked by the respondent No.2’s cousin, who himself came to board the applicant onto the bus. While on the bus, an unknown man, whom the applicant did not, know, was made to sit beside her by the bus conductor, stating that the said person would get down at Bardoli. Though the applicant refused but there was no seat available, the applicant allowed him to sit in her cabin. Thereafter, the bus proceeded further, subsequently Jaydeep i.e. nephew of respondent No.2, suddenly boarded the bus and immediately began recoding videos and photographs, and created a scene by making allegations against the applicant. The applicant was not taken back to the matrimonial home and has been residing at her parental house. 2.4. Respondent No.2 is employed in a private establishment and earns approximately Rs.35,000/- per month. He in financially, capable of maintaining the applicant but has willfully neglected and refused to do so. The present respondent No.2 refused to maintain present applicant, thus present applicant preferred the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karjan vide Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.357 of 2023 which is later committed to learned Family Court, Karjan – Dabhoi, District – Vadodara and registered as Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.118 of 2024. 2.5. The learned Family Court, by the impugned judgment and order dated 23.12.2025, rejected the applicant’s application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, holding that the applicant is not entitled to maintenance. 3. Learned advocate Mr. S. M. Shaikh for the applicant would submit that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate geneses of the dispute arose from the misconduct of Jaydeep, nephew of respondent No.2 herein – husband, who was residing with the matrimonial family of the applicant and has accessed to her mobile phone. Learned advocate would further point out, drawing attention of the examination-in-chief of the applicant, wherein she has categorically deposed that she is uneducated and does not know how to operate mobile phone or use messaging application such as WhatsApp. It is further contended that it was Jaydeep who has sent those massages, however, these aspects of the deposition have remained uncontroverted and unshaken during the cross- examination. 3.1. It is further contended that it was Jaydeep who has sent those massages, however, these aspects of the deposition have remained uncontroverted and unshaken during the cross- examination. 3.1. That, the fact has come on record that the Jaydeep – nephew of respondent No.2, used the mobile phone of the applicant and sent messages to an unknown male person, however, these chats were produced before the learned Family Court without compliance of the procedure prescribed under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, however, certificate under Section 63 was produced by respondent No.2, who is neither the owner, operator, manager, nor maintainer of the said electronic / digital device, and therefore, had no authority to certify the electronic evidence, hence, in the absence of inadmissible evidence, the learned trial Court committed grave error in relying on those inadmissible material erred in rejecting the application of the wife for maintenance. 3.2. That, the learned Family Judge has failed to properly consider the incident of 23.05.2023, wherein it is undisputable fact that the applicant was travelling to her sister-in-law’s house in Maharashtra and that the ticket for the luxury sleeper bus was booked by the cousin of respondent No.2. In the examination-in-chief, the applicant categorically deposed that she did not know the person who was sit beside her in the sleeper cabin. However, at the instence of the conductor of bus – Shyam that the unknown person was made to sit beside her. This aspect has not been considered and has been treated as adultery by the learned Family Court. 3.3. It is further argued that learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the admission made by respondent No.2 in his examination-in-chief that the bus ticket was booked by his cousin and that the applicant was travelling alone. It is further argued that respondent No.2 – husband has not produce any direct evidence of an adulterous relationship and solely relied upon circumstantial allegations, and thus, materially weaken the case of pre-planned adulterous conduct, that the Family Court relied upon such weak evidence has concluded that wife is living in an adultery relationship. 3.4. It is further argued that respondent No.2 – husband has not produce any direct evidence of an adulterous relationship and solely relied upon circumstantial allegations, and thus, materially weaken the case of pre-planned adulterous conduct, that the Family Court relied upon such weak evidence has concluded that wife is living in an adultery relationship. 3.4. That the learned Family Court has failed to consider the testimony of Jaydeep, the nephew of respondent No.2, who is in his examination-in-chief, has categorically admitted that the alleged videos and photographs were recorded by him in his mobile phone, however, it is not Jaydeep who produced certificate, however, the husband i.e. the respondent No.2 has produced the certificate which is not in accordance with law, more particularly, under Section 63 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, and thus, argued to allow the present revision application. 3.5. Learned advocate for the applicant would further submit that Jaydeep is not an independent witness and he is an interested witness, more particularly, he being nephew of the respondent No.2 has wrongly deposed on oath to support the first claim of adulterous life made by the husband. 3.6. That, the learned Family Court has further materially erred in drawing the averse inference against the respondent No.2 who has not examined the most material and independent witness namely Praveen More, the co-passenger, who was present in the cabin and who has shown live of the entire episode on 23.05.2023. It would further argued that the conductor of the bus was also not examined to prove the allegation of adultery life and in absence of any cogent evidence, the learned Family Court ought not to have reject the maintenance application. 3.7. Thus, it is argued that the expression “living in adultery” postulates a continuous course of adulterous conduct and not an isolated or stray allegation without there being any proof to prove the adultery, and thus, by relying upon unproven facts, learned Family Court committed grave error in rejecting the application. 3.8. That, the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that burden of proving that the applicant is “living in adultery” is upon on respondent No.2, and merely on suspicion and/or an isolated incident, the respondent No.2 is not discharge from his burden to prove wife is having “living in adultery” and by overlooking such fundamental principle, learned Family Court has committed serious error of law. Thus, it is argued to allow the present application. 4. This Court has gone through the impugned order dated 23.12.2025, this Court has also gone through the entire deposition of the applicant alongwith her cross-examination which is placed on record vide annexure – C and D, Exhibit 9 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.118 of 2024, entire deposition of respondent No.2 alongwith his cross-examination which is at annexure – E and F, Exhibit 21 and the entire deposition of Jaydeep Patil alongwith and his cross-examination which is at annexure – G and H, Exhibit 46. 5. Having considered the material on record, more particularly, the learned Family Judge has framed following issues at paragraph 15 which reads as under: “A. Whether the applicant proves that the opponent had neglected or refuses to maintain the applicant, even though having sufficient means of earning? B. Whether the applicants are legally entitled for maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC? If yes, How much and since when? C. What order?” 6. With regards to the aforestated issues, mainly issues “A” and “B”, it is not in dispute that the applicant herein has admitted the fact that she was sitting with a male person in the bus cabin when respondent No.2’s nephew and his brother had opened the door of her bus cabin, however, she clarified that at the insistence of the bus driver, the male person who was found in the cabin was allowed to sit. However, it was the duty of the wife to bring on record any cogent material evidence to counter that it was by insist of the bus driver that the male person was allowed to sit in the bus cabin. The learned Family Judge has also relied on photographs produced vide Exhibit 38 and the recording of which is produced with a compact disc vide Exhibit 39 and screen shots of WhatsApp chat vide Exhibit 26 to 36. It is the say of the applicant that those WhatsApp chat came to her knowledge only when her husband has shown that WhatsApp chat and has further stated that it is Jaydeep who has forwarded those WhatsApp chat to someone and that she is illiterate and does not know to operate WhatsApp. It is the say of the applicant that those WhatsApp chat came to her knowledge only when her husband has shown that WhatsApp chat and has further stated that it is Jaydeep who has forwarded those WhatsApp chat to someone and that she is illiterate and does not know to operate WhatsApp. Thus, it is not in dispute that the applicant is also denying the factum that the unknown person is found in the cabin of the applicant and has also admitted the said fact, however, learned advocate for the applicant states that a merely formal friendship with the male counter part would not amount to adultery, however, it would be apt to note that the wife having failed to prove that at the instance of the driver the male counter part was allowed to sit in cabin has remained unproved. With regard to WhatsApp chat history screen shots, more particularly, Exhibit 26 to 36 which discloses that the applicant was exchanging affectionate and flirty messages with a person bearing mobile phone No.8840863787 to which except denial by the applicant herein there is nothing to prove involvement of Jaydeep – nephew of respondent No.2 herein. 7. Learned advocate for the applicant would further submit that in absence of any certificate under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the said could not be relied upon. This contention is required to be rejected at the threshold in view of the Section 14 of the Family Court Act, 1984 which provides as follow: “14. Application of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.- A Family Court may receive as evidence any report, statement, documents, information or matter that may, in its opinion, assist it to deal effectually with a dispute, whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.” 8. Thus, the Family Court can receive as evidence and documents whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Under the circumstance, the stricto sensu provisions of Indian Evidence Act do not apply to the proceedings before the Family Court, and thus, the said contention is rejected at the threshold. Thus, the Family Court can receive as evidence and documents whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Under the circumstance, the stricto sensu provisions of Indian Evidence Act do not apply to the proceedings before the Family Court, and thus, the said contention is rejected at the threshold. Having ample materials on record to point out, more particularly, Exhibit 26 to 36, which shows the exchange by applicant with a person bearing mobile No.8840863787, exchanging affectionate and flirty messages and from the presence of a person namely Praveen More having found in the cabin of the bus for which the photographs have been produced vide Exhibit 38 and the video recording of which is produced with a compact disc vide Exhibit 39 is also placed on record, coupled with the fact that the applicant herself has not denied the presence of such person in the cabin. Under such circumstance, this court do not found any material irregularity or palpable error on the face of the record while rejecting the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on the ground of adultery, and thus, the present revision application is rejected at the threshold.