The court emphasized that allegations of adultery must be substantiated with credible evidence, and unauthorized recording of intimate moments violates the right to privacy.

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. 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