The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has dismissed an appeal filed by a husband seeking to initiate perjury proceedings against his wife for allegedly exaggerating his income in a maintenance case. The Court observed that in proceedings for maintenance, it is “common knowledge” that claimants often exaggerate the income of the spouse, but such statements do not necessarily warrant action under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
The ruling was delivered by Justice Raj Beer Singh in a criminal appeal filed under Section 380 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Background of the Case
The appellant challenged an order dated October 28, 2025, passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 4, Prayagraj. The Family Court had rejected his application filed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. (read with Section 379 BNSS) against his wife, respondent No. 2.
The dispute originated from a maintenance case filed by the wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In her affidavit, the wife mentioned the appellant’s monthly income as ₹80,000, and at another instance, as ₹1,25,000. The husband contended that his actual income was only ₹11,000 per month and that his wife had made false averments deliberately.
Arguments of the Parties
The Counsel for the Appellant argued that the wife had filed a false affidavit without any supporting evidence. It was submitted that since the respondent had made false statements, a case under Sections 211, 213, 222, and 232 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) was made out. The appellant claimed the Family Court’s refusal to initiate an inquiry was arbitrary and against the facts of the case.
The Counsel for Respondent No. 2 opposed the appeal, stating that the appellant, an advocate, had concealed his income from agriculture and rentals. It was argued that the income of the husband is a matter of evidence to be decided by the Family Court and that the perjury application was merely a “delaying tactic” to avoid paying interim maintenance.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court examined the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. (Section 379 BNSS) and Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. The Court emphasized that an inquiry should only be made if it is “expedient in the interest of justice.”
Citing the Supreme Court in Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam and another (AIR 1971 SC 1367), the High Court noted:
“The prosecution for perjury should be sanctioned by courts only in those cases where the perjury appears to be deliberate and conscious and the conviction is reasonably probable or likely… Prosecution should be ordered when it is considered expedient in the interests of justice to punish the delinquent and not merely because there is some inaccuracy in the statement which may be innocent or immaterial.”
Furthermore, the Court referred to Jaswinder Singh v. Smt. Paramjit Kaur (1985), observing that courts should not become tools for “private vendetta” or be used to satisfy personal grudges between parties.
Regarding the specific nature of maintenance disputes, the Court observed:
“It is common knowledge that in such proceedings like under Section 125 Cr.P.C., generally claimant / wife exaggerate 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 Cr.P.C.”
The Court highlighted that the veracity of the wife’s claims regarding the husband’s income is still a matter of evidence to be determined by the Family Court where the main case is pending.
Decision
The Court found no material illegality or perversity in the Family Court’s decision. It concluded that there was no “expediency in the interest of justice” to initiate a criminal complaint for perjury in this instance.
The appeal was dismissed as lacking merit.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Shiva Kant Dubey Versus State of U.P. and Another
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 2026
- Bench: Justice Raj Beer Singh
- Date: March 13, 2026
