Evidence Act standards do not strictly apply to Family Courts' evaluation of adultery in maintenance proceedings.

The applicant (wife) challenged the order of the Family Court, Karjan, dated 23.12.2025, which rejected her maintenance application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The marriage took place in 2002, resulting in two children.

The respondent (husband) alleged the wife was "living in adultery," citing an incident on 23.05.2023 where the wife was found in a luxury bus sleeper cabin with an unknown man, Praveen More.

The husband produced WhatsApp chats and video recordings of the incident.

The wife contended she was uneducated, the chats were framed by her nephew Jaydeep, and the man in the bus was seated there by the conductor due to lack of space.

1. Whether the applicant proved that the respondent neglected or refused to maintain her despite having sufficient means.

2. Whether the applicant is legally entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC in light of allegations of adultery.

3. Whether electronic evidence (WhatsApp chats/videos) is admissible in Family Court proceedings without a certificate under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

The court primarily applied Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which disentitles a wife from receiving maintenance if she is "living in adultery".

It further relied on Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which empowers the Family Court to receive any evidence, report, or document it deems assistful to the dispute, regardless of whether such evidence is strictly admissible or relevant under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (or subsequent Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam).

The High Court found that the applicant admitted to the presence of a male stranger in her private bus cabin but failed to provide cogent evidence to prove her defense that he was placed there by the bus conductor.

The court noted that the husband produced incriminating WhatsApp chats (Exhibits 26-36) showing affectionate and flirty exchanges, along with video recordings (Exhibit 39) and photographs (Exhibit 38) of the bus incident.

Regarding the applicant’s technical objection to the lack of a Section 63 certificate for electronic evidence, the court held that Section 14 of the Family Courts Act overrides the strict technicalities of the Evidence Act, allowing the Judge to consider such materials to resolve matrimonial disputes effectively.

Consequently, the cumulative evidence of the private cabin encounter and the chat history supported the lower court’s finding of an adulterous course of conduct.

The court held that there was no material irregularity or palpable error in the lower court's reliance on the electronic evidence or its factual findings.

The Criminal Revision Application was rejected at the threshold.