The Allahabad High Court held that overstating a husband’s income in maintenance proceedings does not automatically attract perjury. Justice Raj Beer Singh dismissed the plea, noting the issue remains pending before the family court.
PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad High Court recently held that a wife’s overstatement of her husband’s income in maintenance proceedings does not automatically justify initiating perjury proceedings against her. Justice Raj Beer Singh made this remark while dismissing a husband’s request to take action after his wife alleged his monthly income was Rs 80,000 when it was actually Rs 11,000.
The Court pointed out that the issue remains pending before the family court, and the correctness of the wife’s claim has yet to be examined.
ALSO READ; Income Tax Dept Can’t Compel Lender PAN Disclosure: Madras High Court
The Bench said,
“It is common knowledge that in such proceedings like under Section 125 CrPC, generally claimant / wife exaggerates the income of her husband in order to claim maintenance but it does not mean that such a statement on the part of wife warrants action under Section 340 CrPC,”
The Court observed that the purpose of Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (court’s power to file a complaint for perjury) and Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) is to guard against frivolous or vindictive prosecutions.
A court must be satisfied that it is expedient, in the interest of justice, to initiate an inquiry into an offence related to proceedings before it, the Bench explained.
Accordingly, the court is not required to lodge a complaint in every case.
ALSO READ: Income Tax Searches| Prior Notice Can Ruin investigation, Destroy Evidence: Supreme Court
The Court said,
“This expediency will normally be judged by the court by weighing not the magnitude of injury suffered by the person affected by such forgery or forged document, but having regard to the effect or impact, such commission of offence has upon administration of justice. It would be pertinent to mention that the Courts never become tools at the hands of the parties to satisfy private vendetta to take up cudgels on behalf of one party and punish the other,”
On that basis, the husband’s appeal was dismissed.
It said,
“It cannot be said that there was any expediency in the interest of justice to make any complaint under Section – 340 Cr.P.C.. The application of the appellant filed under Section – 379 BNSS was rejected by a reasoned order. No material illegality or perversity could be shown in the impugned order. The appeal lacks merit and thus liable to be dismissed,”
Case Title: SKD v State of UP
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE