The main legal point established in the judgment is the active role of courts in eliciting the truth and ensuring justice, as well as the need for a time-bound decision in cases involving maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.

1. Both these revisions arise from common judgment and order, hence these have been decided by this common judgment. In this judgment revisionist in Criminal Revision No. 6 of 2020, Pammi Kholia shall be referred to as revisionist and respondent no. 2 in that revision Sanjay Kholia shall be referred as respondent.

2. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy, briefly stated, are as follows. The revisionist filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) seeking maintenance from the respondent. Based on it, the proceeding of Misc. Criminal Case No. 39 of 2017, Smt. Pammi Kholia vs. Sanjay Kholia was instituted in the court of Judge, Family Court, Nainital (“the case”). According to the revisionist, after marriage with the respondent, on 03.12.2016, she was subjected to cruelty for and in connection with the demand of dowry. The respondent also once made her obscene video, threatened her to bring more money from her father’s house. There was a lot of dispute, but finally the revisionist was expelled from her matrimonial house. According to the revisionist, she is not able to maintain herself. Whereas, the respondent is working in a company and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month.

3. The respondent filed objections. According to the respondent, he did not commit any cruelty or harassment. It is the revisionist, who denied conjugal relations on one pretext or other; the revisionist would tell that she never wanted to marry the respondent, but under the pressure of her family she agreed for it. With regard to his income, the respondent would state that he is earning Rs. 7,500/- per month, as a labourer, in some khaste ka thela. According to the respondent, the revisionist also earns Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per month.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The parties adduced evidence. The revisionist examined herself as PW-1 and PW-2 Sunil Ghildiyal was also examined on her behalf. The respondent appeared as a witness, as DW-1 and also filed certain documents alongwith list 28B. After hearing the parties, by impugned judgment and order dated 26.11.2019, the application under Section 125 of the Code has been allowed and the respondent has been directed to pay Rs. 6,000/- per month to the revisionist. The revisionist has challenged the impugned judgment and order, seeking enhancement of the maintenance from Rs. 6,000/- per month to Rs. 10,000/- per month. Whereas, the respondent has challenged the impugned judgment and order on the ground that it is not legally justified.

6. During the course of hearing, the Court invited the attention of learned counsel for the parties to the list of documents 28B filed by the respondent on 27.02.2018. Along with it, eleven documents were filed by the respondent. The respondent, when appeared as DW-1, in the case, has extensively been cross examined on the document as filed alongwith the list 28B. In his affidavit filed in his examination in chief, the respondent has stated about the documents, which he had filed along with the list. It is recording of calls between the parties.

7. The Court wanted to know from the learned counsel for the parties as to whether documents have been even discussed in the impugned judgment and order.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that electronic record could not have been read in evidence for the want of certificate, as required under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (“the Act”). Learned counsel for the revisionist also referred to the statement of DW-1 Sanjay Kholia in his cross examination, when he replied that he does not know as to what contains in the Compact Disc (“CD”). He has also admitted that the printout of the chats, which he had filed as 28B/13 and 28B/22 do not bear any signature or seal. But, the fact also reveals that in Para 11 of his affidavit filed alongwith his examination in chief, the respondent has categorically s