Wives often exaggerate husbands' income in maintenance claims: Allahabad HC declines perjury action

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that exaggeration of a husband’s income by his wife in maintenance proceedings does not warrant any action against the wife for perjury (making false argument/ statement to court)..Justice Raj Beer Singh made the observation while dismissing a husband’s plea seeking action against his wife for claiming that his monthly income was ₹80,000 when in fact it was only ₹11,000.The Court said the matter is still pending before the family court and that the accuracy of the claim made by the wife was yet to be considered.“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 Bench said. .It is common knowledge that in such proceedings like under Section 125 CrPC, generally wife exaggerates the income of her husband in order to claim maintenance.Allahabad High Court.The Court noted that the object of Section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure (power of court to file complaint for perjury) or Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) us to provide a safeguard against frivolous and vexatious prosecution. A Court has to form an opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made for an offence committed in relation to a proceeding in that court, the Bench explained. Thus, it opined that in every matter, the Court is not bound to make a complaint in this regard.“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,” the Court said..Thus, the Court in the present case rejected the husband’s appeal.“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,” it said..[Read Judgment]