The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has dismissed an appeal filed by a husband seeking leave to prosecute his wife for perjury. In its judgment, the Court emphasized the well-settled legal obligation of a husband to maintain his wife and clarified that when a party relies on a document, the “entirety of the document must be seen as relied upon.”
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Satya Veer Singh, ruled that a part of a document cannot be used to canvass an allegation while rejecting the rest under the law of evidence.
Background of the Case
The appellant filed an appeal (First Appeal Defective No. 212 of 2026) challenging a judgment dated February 6, 2026, passed by the Family Court. The lower court had rejected his application for leave to prosecute his wife for perjury. The husband alleged that his wife had made several false statements in her pleadings to secure maintenance.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, argued that the respondent-wife committed perjury on two primary counts:
- Employment Status: The appellant claimed the wife is a “working lady” but falsely represented herself as a housewife.
- Financial Assets: The appellant alleged that the wife failed to disclose Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) exceeding Rs. 20 lakhs held in Bank of Baroda and HDFC Bank.
During the proceedings, the appellant’s counsel admitted that the FDRs were deposited by the wife’s father. He further stated that recent inquiries revealed only about Rs. 4 lakhs remained, as the rest had been encashed by the wife. The appellant also contended that the wife had suppressed financial details in her affidavit filed pursuant to the Supreme Court guidelines in Rajnesh vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court underscored the foundational principles governing maintenance and evidence. Referring to the husband’s duty, the Bench observed:
“It is well settled that a husband is obliged to maintain his wife. This position has emanated from situations, where the spouses have separated and the wife has sought for maintenance… So much so, this obligation of the husband to maintain the wife attaches even after death of the husband in the law allowing the widow to claim maintenance from her father-in-law.”
Regarding the appellant’s use of evidence to allege perjury, the Court stated:
“It is also well settled that when a document is relied upon, entirety of the document must be seen as relied upon. A part of it for purpose of canvassing the allegation and rest rejected is not permissible in law of evidence.”
On the issue of employment, the Court noted that the appellant did not produce documents to demonstrate she was employed:
“She, saying she is not employed, cannot be compelled to prove the negative. Onus was on applicant to show she is in employment.”
Concerning the FDRs, the Court found that they were made by her father, who has no obligation to maintain her after marriage. The Court added that the encashment of these funds was a “demonstration of respondent’s need to maintain herself in absence of applicant providing any maintenance.”
Addressing the claim of suppression, the Court clarified:
“Suppression is not or cannot be said to be a false statement made.”
Decision
Exercising its power under Rule 11 of Order 41, Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court dismissed the appeal at the admission stage. The Bench concluded that the appellant failed to provide “material” or “cogent evidence” to show that the respondent had made false statements before the Family Court.
The Registry was directed to communicate the dismissal to the concerned Family Court.
Case Details Block:
- Case Title: Akul Rastogi vs. Shubhangi Rastogi
- Case Number: First Appeal Defective No. 212 of 2026
- Bench: Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Satya Veer Singh
- Date: March 17, 2026
