Wives Generally Exaggerate Husband's Income In Maintenance Pleas; It Doesn't Automatically Warrant Perjury Action: Allahabad HC

A bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh passed this order while dismissing a criminal appeal filed by a husband challenging a family court's order rejecting his application to initiate proceedings under Section 340 CrPC r/w Section 379 BNSS against his wife.

The appellant-husband submitted that his wife, in a maintenance case u/s 125 CrPC, made false averments by inflating his monthly income. He claimed that while she mentioned his income to be Rs. 80K and Rs. 1,25,000 at different places, his actual income was only Rs. 11K per month.

It was his case that since the wife had made a false statement in the affidavit, a case under Section 211, 213, 222, 232 BNS was made out against her.

On the other hand, the wife's counsel argued that the husband, an advocate with a long-standing practice, was concealing his agricultural and rental income. Her counsel further argued that the husband's income was to be decided by the Family Court on the basis of evidence of the parties.

Against the backdrop of these arguments, the High Court, at the outset, noted that the object of Section 340 CrPC/379 BNSS is to provide a safeguard against frivolous and vexatious prosecution.

Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam 1971, the Court noted that prosecution for perjury should be sanctioned only when the falsehood appears deliberate and conscious, and a conviction is reasonably probable.

Referring to the provisions, the High Court highlighted that a court is not bound to make a complaint in every inquiry unless it forms an opinion that doing so is "expedient in the interests of justice".

"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", the bench observed.

The Court further stressed that the Courts should never become tools in the hands of the parties to satisfy a private vendetta, taking up cudgels on behalf of one party and punishing the other.

Referring to the facts of the case, the Court said that it cannot be said that there was any expediency in the interest of justice to make any complaint under Section 340 CrPC.

The Court also pointed out that the matter of the husband's actual income is still pending before the Family Court and will be decided strictly on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties.

Against this backdrop, finding no material illegality or perversity in the order impugned, the Court dismissed the appeal.