The Allahabad High Court has ruled that it is “common knowledge” that wives exaggerate their husband’s income in maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and such statements do not by themselves warrant the initiation of perjury proceedings.
In a judgment delivered by Justice Raj Beer Singh, the court dismissed a criminal appeal filed by a husband who sought action against his wife for allegedly making false statements about his earnings.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a maintenance application filed by the wife under Section 125 CrPC. In her affidavit, she claimed the husband’s monthly income was ₹80,000 at one place and ₹1,25,000 at another. However, the husband contended that his actual income was only ₹11,000 per month. He accused her of making false averments and applied to the family court for proceedings under Section 340 CrPC (read with Section 379 BNSS) for perjury, citing provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (Sections 211, 213, 222, 232 BNS).
The family court rejected his application, prompting the husband, an advocate by profession, to file a criminal appeal before the High Court. His counsel argued that the wife’s claims were deliberately false and merited prosecution. The wife’s side countered that the husband was concealing additional income from agricultural land and rentals, and that the final determination of his earnings should be left to the family court on the basis of evidence.
Court’s Observations
Dismissing the appeal, Justice Singh observed that wives generally tend to exaggerate their husband’s income in such cases, but this practice does not automatically justify launching perjury proceedings.
The judge emphasised that the purpose of Section 340 CrPC is to act as a safeguard against frivolous and vexatious prosecutions, not to settle personal scores. Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling, the court noted that a complaint for perjury should be made only where the falsehood is deliberate and conscious, and where a conviction is reasonably probable. Courts must consider whether it is “expedient in the interests of justice” to initiate such action.
The bench remarked: “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.”
Justice Singh further cautioned that courts should not become instruments for parties to pursue private vendettas. In this instance, since the husband’s actual income was still pending determination by the family court based on evidence, there was no expediency in the interests of justice to pursue perjury proceedings against the wife.
The High Court found no material illegality or perversity in the family court’s order and accordingly dismissed the husband’s appeal.
