Perjury in crpc-125 DV 48a

1. Humbly submit that the respondent has highest respect for every
instructions/directions/orders of this Hon’ble Court and the respondent is
the law abiding and respectable citizen of India and also worked as
Scientific Officer for Govt. of India.
2. Humbly submits that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to reject all the
prayers of petitioner on the ground that petitioner suppressed material
facts and also gave false information to this Hon’ble Court through the
affidavits in present case and in the interest of justice and equity before
hearing the petitioner this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispose the
below list of applications:
i. CRLMP NO: 529/2010 in MC NO: 145/2009 filed U/s 340 of CrPC r/w 195
of CrPC.
ii. CRLMP NO: 135/2011 in CRLMP NO: 522/2009 in MC NO: 145/2009 filed
U/s 340 of CrPC r/w 195 of CrPC. iii. CRLMP NO: 39/2011 in MC NO:
145/2009 filed U/s 127 of CrPC.
iv. Perjury application dated: 24/01/2014 in MC NO: 145/2009 filed U/s
340 of CrPC r/w 195 of CrPC.
3. Humbly submit that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to consider the
list of documents that are filed on 24/01/2014 by respondent while
disposing any applications and petitions filed by the parties of the present
case.
4. Humbly submit that passing any orders/decisions in MC NO: 145/2009
before disposing the listed applications/petitions in this MEMO would
result in non-compliance of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India
and the proceedings would not be fair and transparent and such
circumstances would result in miscarriage of justice and damages to the
respondent.
5. Humbly submits that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to rely on the
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of (2004) 7 SCC 166,
enclosed in this MEMO as Annexure-4, in which Hon’ble Court held that
"As a general rule, suppression of a material fact by a litigant disqualifies
such litigant from obtaining any relief. This rule has been evolved out of
the need of the Courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of Court
by deceiving it...."
6. Humbly submits that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispose the
PERJURY applications referred above by relying on the decisions of Hon’ble
High Courts of India, enclosed as Annexure- 5 & 6, in which Hon’ble Courts
held that:
“if an application is moved in the pending case bringing to the notice of the
court that any false evidence knowing well has been filed or fabricated in
such proceedings, the court should dispose of the said application first
before proceeding any further or before recording of further evidence”.
7. Humbly submits that, in the interest of justice, this Hon’ble Court may
be pleased to STOP the proceedings invoking relevant provisions of CrPC
and AQUIT/DISCHARGE the respondent on the grounds mentioned in
above list of applications and this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to rely on
the citations enclosed in this MEMO as Annexure-1 to 3 to
AQUIT/DISCHARGE the respondent by invoking Section 258 of CrPC &
Other provisions. Place: Date: - -2014. Respondent Enclosures: Annexure-1:
Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of K.M. Mathew vs
State Of Kerala And Anr M/S S.J.S. Business Enterprises Vs State Of Bihar &
Ors.
Annexure-2: Judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in case of
P.Gopalakrishna & Amp; Another Vs State Of A.P.
Annexure-3: Judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of State of
Maharashtra Vs Ram S/o Pandharinath Chidrawar.
Annexure-4: Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of M/S
S.J.S. Business Enterprises Vs State Of Bihar & Ors.
Annexure-5: Judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in case of Syed
Nazim Husain Vs. The Additional Principal Judge Family Court & another.
Annexure-6: Judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in
case of Sunny Bhumbla Vs Shashi. Read more at:
Respected all, In my 125 case , wife and her mother both filling false
affidiate and telling false on oath that my wife not doing any kind of job.
Wheares when she fill an 125 case on me at that time she was doing job on
contract basis and getting stipend of rs. 8000/= and then after she left that
job and from last 1.5 year she is doing govt. job as teacher on fix salary of
5000/= ( for period of 5 year as per rule of gujarat govt. and then after
gross salary she will get. ) and she is not tell the court that facts .
sir, i called the Officer from that place where she earlier working ( csmcri -
the central govt. institute in bhavnagar ) and also get RTI copy and
submitted in court , Also summened to the principal of the school where
she is working presently and Get RTI copy of that and submitted in court .
NOW IT WAS WELL CLEARED in court that she had told lie in oath , though
the Judge giving some sympathy to her. Now in next date , will be the
closing date for the providing evidence from my side . Now , what should I
do ???? I mmechanical engineer and getting more than 40000/ and i have
daughter live with my wife. she had also done 498 agains me and my
parent.... sir, my questions are -
1. is there any maintenance ?????
2. should i file perjury ????
3. can i file perjury after order ??? please reply... Read more at:
1. is there any maintenance ????? The child will definitely get
maintenance. As the wife is earning only Rs.5000/- at present and your
income is about Rs.40,000/-, there is a likelihood, she may get paltry sum.
2. should i file perjury ????
You can file perjury petition right now. The judge may take it right now or
along with the final order and decide whether to refer to perjury case or
not.
3. can i file perjury after order ??? As 2 above.
1) File Perjury right in the next date without fail with all the proof.
2) Press for Perjury application to be heard before any progress is made in
the 125 crpc case. As far as I know if perjury application is filed in a case
then it has to be disposed off before the main case is closed.
3) You have very good evidence against both the culprits (your wife and
her mother).
4) Even I am also waiting for my wife's side family to come for cross
examination (my wife had put many lias in her cross examination against
which I have proofs) as I also want my in-laws to be included in Perjury so
am waiting with fingue crossed that they would come as witness. Ideally
Perjury should be filed as soon as wife finishes her evidence so that they
can not change their version in later part of their evidence.
1) File Perjury right in the next date without fail with all the proof.
2) Press for Perjury application to be heard before any progress is made in
the 125 crpc case. As far as I know if perjury application is filed in a case
then it has to be disposed off before the main case is closed.
3) You have very good evidence against both the culprits (your wife and
her mother).
4) Even I am also waiting for my wife's side family to come for cross
examination (my wife had put many lias in her cross examination against
which I have proofs) as I also want my in-laws to be included in Perjury so
am waiting with fingue crossed that they would come as witness. Ideally
Perjury should be filed as soon as wife finishes her evidence so that they
can not change their version in later part of their evidence.
One point is not cleared. Whether will the wife get any punishment for
perjury. If so, how much punishment.
Dear Friends, I have seen people have lot of questions/confusion on
Speedy Trial, Perjury and Quashing. Let me try to enlighten it.
“History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of
social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the
appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King, Jr. Corruption in
India is not because of bad people are more, because of right people do
not take right action at right time. According to data available with the
apex court, the number of pending cases with the Supreme Court is 64,919
as on December 1, 2014. The data available for the 24 High Courts and
lower courts up to the year ending 2013 showed pendency of 44.5 lakhs
and whopping 2.6 crores, respectively. Of the over 44 lakh cases pending in
the 24 high courts of the country, 34,32,493 were civil and 10,23,739
criminal. The maximum pendency of civil and criminal cases together was
in Allahabad High Court with 10,43,398 cases while the minimum was in
Sikkim with 120 cases pending at the end of 2013. The Delhi High Court
had a total of 64,652 cases pending before it. More than 32 million pending
cases in high courts and subordinate courts across the country. From
aforesaid data we can easily realize that Indian Judiciary System which is
driven by corrupted Advocates and Judges never wishes to arrive at the
truth, punish the guilty and protect the innocents. These Advocates and
Judges have created a wrongful extortion racket to harass innocents and
squeeze their money. Justice delayed means Justice Denied Criminals
always try to delay court process to avoid conviction. Those who have
registered false cases for malicious intention also try to delay court process
to prolongate harassment. From the aforesaid data we can realize that
Indian Judiciary System which is driven by corrupted Advocates and Judges
supports both a & b. It is our duty to stop. It is said that – “The best
defense is a good offense”. Perjury and Speedy Trial is the ultimate
weapon. There are no provisions in law through which engagement of
advocate is compulsory. Person may file or defend any case personally
without engaging advocate. You may plead case of your relative in court
after securing power of attorney from your relative subject to permission
of council of Section 32 of Advocate Act. Never file Quashing unless you
have Anticipatory Bail or Regular Bail. I never advised quashing alone.
Quashing is not easy. I always advise quashing with speedy trial, that is,
there should be a 2nd prayer in the same quashing petition for speedy trial
to dispose of the matter within certain period (For 498A and others it
should be 6 months; Please refer Sec. 21-B of Hindu Marriage Act / 40-B Of
Special Marriage Act whichever is applicable) as facing lengthy trial
deprives personal liberty as per Article 21 of Indian Constitution.
FAQ - on Perjury & Speedy Trial Why I advise Quashing with Speedy Trial?
Not only Speedy Trial?
Ans: - Usually 498A cases or any false cases the false and concocted
statements are recorded in FIRs and Charge Sheets. In Quashing and
Speedy Trial process, your submissions will be recorded in the High Court
order which will be act as very good evidence during the trial.
Can perjury and defamation be filed in parallel as a courter case?
Ans: - Yes. Perjury should be filed U/S 340 CrPC read with 195 CrPC.
Defamation should be filed U/S 499 IPC read with 500 IPC.
When can I file Perjury?
Ans: - Perjury can be filed at any stage of a criminal or civil proceeding. It is
advisable that perjury and WS (Written Statements) should be filed
together for any civil (like divorce, RCR, Child custody, DVA-quasi-civil, 125
CrPC-quasi-criminal) and/or criminal proceedings (like 498A (WS not
required)).
Where can I file Perjury?
Ans: - Perjury should be filed in the same courts where civil / criminal cases
is going on respectively. That is for 498A, DVA, 125 CrPC, Divorce, RCR, . . . .
. , etc. distinct Perjury petitions should be filed in the same courts
respectively.
How many times can I file Perjury?
Ans: - This depends how many times your opponent have filed false
petitions. If the number of false petitions are "n" then you can file n-
number of times in the same courts respectively. Why all Advocates
reluctant to file Perjury and Defamation?
Ans: - Because Indian Judiciary System which is driven by corrupted
Advocates and Judges never wishes to arrive at the truth, punish the guilty
and protect the innocents.
Can I file Perjury and Defamation Party-in-persion?
Ans: - Yes. Can my relatives/friends file my cases party-in-persion?
Ans: - Yes, by securing power of attorney as power of council as per sec 32
of Advocate Act. If Judges willfully delay my Perjury Petition(s), what to
do?
Ans: - First pray to that judge to write in the order-sheet the reason why
he/she does not wish to register the case. Refer the citations in my links in
favor of your argument. (By giving a put-up (Sec. 151 of Code of Civil
Procedure (CPC)).)) Complaint against that judge to the chief District judge
in written petition and pray to transfer the matter to a first track court for
expedient trial. (Sec. 24 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)). You can
approach to HC and file Criminal Writ (if a & b fails) as I have suggested in
my links.
The family court dismissed the recovery proceeding u/s 125(3) crpc file by
my ex-wife as she was not appearing on october 2015 (three court dates
back) which is kept for dismissal order last 5 months. however the matter
is appearing on the baord on every date till yesterday date. on this date
the court clerk inform me that her proceeding is dismissed but was on
today's board was by mistake. In that proceeding i already file perjury
application as misc appliction on ground that she falsely claim exhorbitant
maintenance arrears beyond her remarriage date without informing court
about her remarriage and attached warrant also executed by her. The
previous judge first reject the application stating that perjury is not
committed before this court but after i filed review petition in that the said
judge allowed my review petition and restored the original perjury misc
appln, the court has not assigned any misc number to my perjury
application and first reject that application and in review allowed that
perjury application. later that judge got retired and new judge comes and
said without enquiry compliant can't be filed after this i file chief
examination affidavit on perjury. on later the new judge kept original
recovery proceeding for dismissal order (as she is not apearing in court)
knowing this i file an application stating that the court first dispossed-off
the perjury applcation which is arise out of original recovery proceeding
and then disimissed the recover proceeding. but judge write order "that
this perjury application is a separate proceeding and can't be clubbed with
this recovery proceeding. Hence application rejected" kindly advise what's
remedy to me to proceed for perjury application and how earlier judge
allowed the perjury application and kept for enquiry and new judge
rejected my application for reminding court to enquiry first and then
dispossed of the main recovery proceeding but proceeding is dismissed
without disposing off the perjury applcation. it's that separate proceeding
to be file for perjury and not an application in main proceeding. Also, how
come court dismissed recovery proceeding on some previous court date
and after dismissal same matter was posted on board for three dates. your
prompt advise is hihgly appreciated.
Perjury case and relief to wife if lying Read
Hello Experts, I like to know that in all the false cases filed by my wife
(498a & 406, DV, Crpc 125) against me and my family she has mentioned
that she was forcefully thrown out of her matrimonial house whereas I
have an audio tape whereby she herself has confessed that she left the
home on her own will. Except that we have no other proof/witness. Right
now all the cases are in appearance stage and we are yet to file our reply
in these cases. I was arrested in 498a case and then released on bail. Can
the court deny her any kind of relief that she is looking for (monetary and
other benefits) as she didn't came with clean hands. Also, can we file
perjury case for lying under the oath. Is there any other action that we can
take against her under the perview of the law.
1. Can the court deny her any kind of relief that she is looking for
(monetary and other benefits) as she didn't came with clean hands. I will
reply in context with the DV case which has been filed by your wife on you
and your parents etc. As you have not mentioned specifically under what
sections has she filed DV [domestic violence] case, I bring to your notice
that there is Section 23 of DV act 2005, under which ex-parte orders can be
issued by the magistrate and thereby your wife can get any relief what she
has asked for under the entire DV case.
For example: If she has asked for monetary relief.. she will get monetary
relief.
If she has asked for residence, magistrate can pass orders for residence,
either at matrimonial house or ask you to provide residence to her and
also ask you to pay money to her as maintenance. Non-compliance of such
ex-parte orders will lead to contempt of court and issuance of warrant
against you and also NBW [nonbailable warrant, just in case you dont get
caught]. Also, can we file perjury case for lying under the oath. Is there any
other action that we can take against her under the perview of the law.
Perjury case is best filed only upon final orders by magistrate or appelate
court, simply filing perjury case wont be of any use, your wife should have
lied under oath, on affidavit and such should be recorded by the
magistrate, only then you can plan to sue her.
If it is proved that she lied by giving a false statement under oath, you can
file a perjury case against her. I shall produce a recent Bandra court's
decision on perjury for your information, which will clarify all your doubts:
IN THE FAMILY COURT MUMBAI AT BANDRA PETITION NO.A-2050 OF 2010
Mr. Niraj Shah ... Petitioner Vs. Mrs. Nikita Shah ... Respondent CORAM:
HIS HONOUR JUDGE SHRI. S. R. KAFRE
DATED: 24th. DECEMBER, 2013.
ORDER BELOW EXH.56
This is an application filed by the petitioner for taking action for perjury
against respondent-wife.
2. According to the petitioner he has filed this petition for decree of
divorce. The respondent had filed interim application for maintenance
pendentelite on 28-4-2011 stating in para No.10 of said application, "I have
no source of income and have become burden on my parents, it is
embarrassing and ridiculous situation as I am being compelled to depend
upon parents for my daily needs, after marriage." The respondent has also
mentioned, "I do not have any other source of income."
3. According to the petitioner, the respondent used to work as a Teacher in
a school prior to her marriage is admitted position. The petitioner had filed
an application for review of order by producing documentary proof that
the respondent is working as a school Teacher and her photograph appears
in the magazine of the school. The respondent is doing a job as a pre-
primary Teacher at Thakur Public School, Kandivali (E) and having
permanent job and also having bank account in Saraswat Bank, Kandivali
(E) Branch, vide salary account No. 4963957. The respondent had refused
to produce any document in spite of the petitioner has filed on record the
book published by the school, where the respondent is working as a
Teacher. The respondent has filed her affidavit as per the direction of this
Court, which speaks about her employment. It is admitted that she was
working full-time and getting Rs.7500/- per month but in spite of calling
upon her to produce her bank statement and income proof, she refrained
from doing so.
4. According to the petitioner, after the witness summons and a document
brought on record, it is revealed by the order of this Court dated 7-5-2013
that the respondent is a liar and she obtained the interim maintenance
order by misguiding this Court by purposefully stating lie on oath and
concealing the material fact by not producing documents which are in her
possession and made the petitioner to suffer. Therefore, the petitioner has
requested for taking legal action against the respondent under the
provisions of Section 195 and Section 340 of Criminal Procedure Code.
5. After filing of this application, my learned predecessor has passed order
dated 3-7-2013 of issuance of notice under Section 340 of Criminal
Procedure Code. The copy of this application was given to the respondent
on the same day i.e. on 3-7- 2013. On 5-8-2013 the learned Advocate for
the respondent had made a remark on the overleaf of the application that
she will argue, she does not want to give written reply.
6. I have heard learned Advocate Smt. Usha Tanna for the petitioner and
learned Advocate Smt. Jivan Vijay for the respondent wife. The learned
Advocate for the petitioner has vehemently argued that, though the
respondent has source of income, she has made false averments in her
application that she did not have any source of income. She has sworn
affidavit with false contents. The learned Advocate has further submitted
that while deciding the review application of the husband, this Court has
made observations in respect of the false averments made by the
respondent and therefore, it is necessary to initiate action of perjury
against the respondent-wife.
7. Smt. Jivan Vijay, learned Advocate, appearing for the respondent-wife
has submitted that false accusations are made against the respondent. She
has filed her documents on record and in view of modified order, the
quantum of the maintenance was reduced and this Court, while deciding
the review application, has imposed exemplary cost of Rs.5000/- on the
respondent and therefore already action is taken against the respondent.
Now, there is no need to proceed against the respondent under the
provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Advocate for the
respondent has further submitted that there was no malice or intention to
mislead this Court and the bonafide mistake of the respondent be excused.
8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions canvassed
by the learned Advocates for both the parties.
9. The provisions of Chapter XXVI of Code of Criminal Procedure deal with
offences affecting the administration of justice. Section 195 of said Code
speaks about prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public
servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to
documents given in evidence. The provisions of Section 340 of the Code
reads as under :
Procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195-
(1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any
Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an
inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause
(b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195, which appears to have been
committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case
may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a
proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if
any, as it thinks necessary,-
(a) record a finding to that effect;
(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;
(c ) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;
(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such
Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it
necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and
(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such
Magistrate.
(2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-Section
(1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court has neither
made a complaint under sub-Section
(1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of
such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is
subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 195.
(3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed,-
(a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer
of the Court as the Court may appoint;
(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court or by such officer
of the Court as the Court may authorise in writing in this behalf.
(4) In this section, “Court” has the same meaning as in Section 195.
10. In the case in hand the petitioner-husband has filed main petition for
divorce under the provisions of Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act.
The respondent has submitted written statement at Exh.12. After the
appearance of the respondent, both the parties were referred to the
Marriage Counsellor for exploring the possibility of reconciliation and
amicable settlement. However, no reconciliation or amicable settlement
had taken place. Even after hearing of the argument of present application
at Exh.56, I had referred both the parties to Judge Mediator, to work out
the settlement between the parties. However, the parties could not come
to terms and accordingly Judge Mediator has submitted the report.
11. The respondent had filed interim application No.162 of 2011 (Exh.13)
for interim maintenance under the provisions of Section 24 of Hindu
Marriage Act. Said application was contested by the petitioner. Said
application was decided on 2-3-2012 by my learned predecessor and
interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month was granted to
the respondent, from the date of said application i.e. 28-4-2011. The
respondent was also given litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.
12. On 11-5-2012 the petitioner had filed application for review and/or
cancellation of maintenance order dated 2-3-2012. The said application
was resisted by the respondent by filing her reply on Exh.32 and after
hearing both the parties, the said application was decided on 7-5-2013. In
view of that order, the quantum of maintenance granted to the
respondent was reduced from Rs. 20,000/- per month to Rs.13,000/- per
month.
13. In the original interim maintenance application at Exh.13 in para No.10
the respondent has stated that she has no source of income and has
become burden on her parents, it is embarrassing and ridiculous situation
as she being compelled to depend upon parents for her daily needs, after
marriage. Further, in para No.13 of said application the respondent has
stated that she is a simple graduate and cannot earn her livelihood and it is
the duty of the petitioner to provide for the same. While replying these
averments, the petitioner had stated in para No.8 of his reply at Exh.17
that the respondent is well educated and accomplish and qualified
graduate with expertise in teaching institution and was employed in
Nursery Institution and thus the respondent was capable of maintaining
herself and what was stated by her is not true.
14. Now, it is necessary to see what observations are made by my learned
predecessor while deciding the review application at Exh.30, in respect of
the income of the respondent-wife. The observations made in para No.10
of said order runs as under : “While disposing interim maintenance
application, this Court in para No.4 has observed that there is no record
before Court to believe that respondent-wife is an earning member. This
observation was based upon statement of respondent and also from the
circumstance that there was no record before Court to prove the earning
of the respondent. The documents which are referred herein in this order
clearly reveal that on the date of passing of the order and on the date of
moving an application for interim maintenance, respondent was an
earning member, so respondent has misguided this Court to believe that
she do not have any income. She has suppressed vital information from
the Court that she is earning about Rs.6804/- by being working as a Pre-
primary Teacher in a school”.
15. It is settled position of law that while determining quantum of
maintenance the regard shall be had to the status and position of the
parties, income of both the parties, reasonable wants of the claimant and
number of persons dependent upon the payer. The provisions of
maintenance are benevolent provisions. These provisions are made to
prevent vagrancy of destitute wife and the minor children. The person who
is liable to maintain his dependents, has to provide maintenance to his
dependents, so that they can keep their soul and body together and they
should not face any problem in their day-to-day life. The needy persons
are entitled to get the basic requirements like food, shelter and clothes
from the person who is liable to maintain them as per the provisions of
law.
16. It is settled principle of law that he who seeks equity, must do equity.
The fraud and justice cannot dwell together. The justice seeker must step
in the Court with clean hands. The dishonest person cannot be entertained
by the Court of law. In matrimonial matters persons come with their family
problems before the Court and Court makes every possible attempt to find
out solution of their problems. In such circumstances, it is the first and
foremost responsibility of the party to tell the truth to the Court, so that
Court can go to the root of the matter to solve the real dispute. There
should not be game of hide and seek when justice is sought from the Court
of law. All the Dharmashastras teach us "Tell the truth”. Foundation of
every case must be on true and honest disclosure of facts. No place can be
given to lies or falsehood during the course of administration of justice.
The person who comes to the Court i.e. house of justice, to seek justice,
has to show his bonafides and honesty by making true disclosure of the
facts within his knowledge.
17. Here it has been established that the respondent-wife has suppressed
vital information from the Court that she is earning about Rs.6804/- by
being working as a Pre-primary Teacher in a school. It was the prime duty
of the respondent-wife to come in the Court with clean hands by stating
that she is earning Rs.6804/- per month. If she wants to claim maintenance
from the petitioner, she has to make out a case that it is not possible for
her to lead life with dignity and respect in that amount and the income of
the petitioner is at higher side. She has to show the disparity between her
income and income of the respondent and by making such type of true
disclosure of the facts, she should have claimed maintenance amount from
the petitioner. But this has not been happened in this case. The
respondent-wife has made false averments in her interim maintenance
application by stating that she has no source of income and she is burden
upon her parents. She has not taken pain to disclose her income, though it
may be meager. On the contrary, she has made false statements on oath.
18. While submitting the application for interim maintenance, the
respondent-wife has taken oath and she has sworn affidavit on the
application itself. This goes to show that she has made false averments
knowingly in a Court proceeding. In such circumstances, prima facie, the
offences punishable under Section 177, 181, 182 and 191, read with
Section 193 of Indian penal Code are attracted. Because of the false
statements made by the respondent in her application for interim
maintenance, this Court is misled and misguided and therefore, the
petitioner has suffered and he was directed to pay maintenance at the rate
of Rs.20,000/- per month.
19. The petitioner was required to file application for review of said order
and accepting his contention, the quantum of maintenance was reduced
from Rs.20,000/- per month to Rs.13,000/- per month. While deciding the
said application, my learned predecessor has imposed exemplary cost of
Rs.5000/- on the respondent for making false statements. But it does not
mean that the respondent is absolved from the criminal liability.
Therefore, it is necessary to take action against the respondent as per the
provisions of Section 195 and 340 of Criminal Procedure Code. The Deputy
Registrar of this Court has to file complaint against the respondent in
competent Court for the offences discussed above.
20. In view of my foregoing discussion, I come to the conclusion that, the
application at Exh.56 deserves to be allowed. In the result, I proceed to
pass the following order. O R D E R
1. The application at Exh.56 is allowed.
2. The Deputy Registrar of Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai, is directed to file
complaint against the respondent-wife in competent Court, for the
offences punishable under Section 177, 181, 182 and 191, read with
Section 193 of Indian penal Code.
3. The Deputy Registrar is authorized to take true copies of entire
proceedings to file along with the complaint in the competent Court.
4. Inform this order to Deputy Registrar, Family Court,Bandra, Mumbai.
Sd/- 24-12-2013 (Subhash R. Kafre) Judge, Family Court No.3, Mumbai.
if wife supresses material facts: say, wife is already drawing maintainence
in one case but does not inform the other court about it. when multiple
cases are filed for maintainence. then can it be called perjury or supression
of material facts? for example:" she draws money in HMA 24, but does not
inform the 125 court and DV court, then cant it be called as suppression of
fact?
This case law follows:- (2004)7 SCC 166 para 13 (Supra):
“As a general rule, suppression of a material fact by a litigant disqualifies
such litigant from obtaining any relief. This rule has been evolved out of
the need of the Courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of Court
by deceiving it. But the suppressed fact must be a material one in the
sense that had it not been suppressed it would have had an effect on the
merits of the case…”
.....so does the above scenario, as given by the author. constitute
supression of facts and therby attract perjury??......and if facts which are
not given in the petition but accepted in cross examination also come
under supression of facts?
Section 125 cr.p.c. complaint cannot be dismissed on the ground that S. 24
maintenance was awarded, for the reason that S.24 is an interim relief
during the pendency of divorce petition, where as the relief under S. 125
cr.p.c. runs after divorce is granted and somewhat permanent in nature. It
has to be seen that at the time of filing of S.125 cr.p.c. already S.24 was
already allowed or was in pipeline.
Can a CRPC - 125 for maintainance which was dismissed in default under
the circumstances that the lawyer and the petitioner have accepted the
date of hearing as a correct date and filed for restoration after a lapse of
more then six onths from the date of getting dismiised in default be
restored? Secondly the application for restoration which has been filed
more then 6 months after getting dismissed in default is only signed by the
lawyer who was the SAME lawyer while it was dismissed. Also the
application is is supported with an affidavit on Oath from the deponent
which is NOT the signature of the deponent as in the original petition
which was dismissed. The question is can the deponent and the lawyer be
tried for perjury and a applicaion 340 can me moved for action to be
initiated against the deponent or the lawyer concirned for submitting
affidavit with forged signatures of the deponent and what should be the
possibe trend and action of the Court trying this restoration case.
two facts are not mixed up. one hand you are saying that the restoration
application is unsigned and only enclosed with an affidavit of the lawyer
and the other hand you are saying that the signature of the litigant is
forged by his counsel. It may be clarified here that the proceeding for
perjury can be going on against both the person
Sir my wife filed 498a and crpc 125 in march 2011 and appril 2011
respectively in the same court.
CrPC 125 History:
Application filed on 4 appril 2011 in ACJM COURT. first summoned on
september 2011. I filed opposition on october 2011. Interim maintenance
odered on may 2012. In her side she stands 3 witness she, the marriage
registrar and one of her relative. The marriage registrar did not attend the
court. In my side I was the sole witness and submit 10 medical documents
in a firisti (list of documents) signed by both the lawyer. But in the
argument date my lawyer betrayed with me he did not exhibit these
documents which clearly says that she is 100% telling lie. Then final order
passed on 20 may 2013 and in judgement the judge clearly told that I did
not even file a single documents though I claim that I have so many
documents to show to proof my claim. THEN I FILLED RTI IN HOSPITALS
AND POLICE DEPARTMENT AND GOT REPLY. Then I filed review to addl
district judge and attached these RTI reply also which clearly proves that
she misguided the court and told 100% lie but application rejected. Then I
approach KOLKATA HC application accepted and maintenance reduced and
direct the girl to file affidafit for contesting. My petition is pending in the
HC.
NOW CAN I FILE PERJURY IN THE ACJM COURT OR OTHER COURT?
HER LIES ARE:
1.She told that she was swallowed poison forcefully and tried to kill by
burning on 01 December 2010 BUT MY RTI CLEARLY PROVES THAT SHE DID
NOT SWALLOWED ANYTHING POISIONOUS. 2. She told that she got
unconscious after the incident that is why she could not told the incident
to the doctor BUT MY RTI ( ALSO MY MEDICAL DOCUMENTS) CLEARLY
PROVES THAT SHE WAS NOT AT ALL UNCONSCIOUS.
3. She told that she had to admit in the XXX hospital on the same day and
transferred to $$$ hospital on the same day BUT
MY RTI PROVES THAT SHE WAS NOT ADMITTED ON THE XXX HOSPITAL
AND ADMITTED ON THE $$$ HOSPITAL FOR THE CAUSE OF HEAD ACHE ON
02 DECEMBER 2010 AT 10 AM.
4. She told that she complaint to SP, SDPO, Local Police BUT MY RTI REPLY
SP, SDPO DENIED THAT. in my 498a only her chief is done and she is just
avoiding the court for cross exam by filling medical certificate from a
doctor 2 times she filed medical certificate. One BW issued in her name for
not attending the court and she had taken bail.
SIR PLEASE SUGGEST ME WHAT SHOULD I DO AT THIS STAGE
Great job! lets get the order of Calcutta High Court and direction of the
affidavit to submit by opposite party. then file Perjury in your jurisdiction.
If you file perjury then bad time will come to both your wife and her
lawyer.
THE JUDGEMENT IS BELOW In the matter of :
An application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973;
Mr. Mondal, Mr. Ray, Ms. xxxx …..
For the Petitioner.
The petitioner is directed to serve a copy of this application along with
annexures on the opposite party no.2 by registered post with A/D and on
the opposite party/State through learned Public Prosecutor within a
period of four weeks from this date and to file affidavit-of-service on the
next date of hearing. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
have gone through the impugned judgment challenged in the criminal
revision. There will be stay of operation of the judgment and order dated
28th November, 2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bolpur,
Birbhum in Criminal Misc. Appeal No. 02 of 2013 arising out of judgment
and order passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bolpur,
Birbhum in Misc. Case No. 45 of 2011, on condition that the petitioner-
husband will go on making payment of maintenance of each month at the
rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month in favour of the opposite partywife within
15th day of next succeeding month and on further condition that the
petitioner-husband will make payment of entire amount of arrears of
maintenance, if any, in favour of the opposite party-wife within a period of
two months from the date of passing of this order, in default this stay
order shall stand vacated. The department is directed to send down the
copy of this order to the learned Court below for favour of information and
necessary action. The matter will appear under the heading “Contested
Application” after expiry of eight weeks. Liberty to mention. Criminal
Section is directed to supply urgent Photostat certified copy of this order
to the petitioner, if applied for, after compliance with all necessary
formalities.
SIR NOW CAN I FILE PERJURY IN THE LOWER COURT i.e IN ACJM
COURT????
I AM WORKING IN MP NEXT MONTH I AM GOING HOME ON LEAVE I WANT
FILE PERJURY IN THE NEXT MONTH. CAN I FILE PERJURY IN THE NEXT
MONTH?
An application for perjury based on the above judgement will not lie. The
court has to conclude the case i.e., your averments and statements against
her have to be established in the court through its verdict. The high court
has just stayed the order of the lower court, it has not given its decision on
the case in appeal. You still have to travel a longer distance to give her a
counter attack by way of perjury or other wise. What is the status of 498a
case?Her complaint wherein if she is found to have contradicted the
averments stated in the maintenance case, may be used as evidence in the
ensuing case as your defence. Have you changed your lawyer or not?
Better be careful about the lawyer engaged now, so that you are not
cheated once again.
Until you are not disposing of your 498A you may not get permanent relief.
Please change your lawyer. Please appear in-person in High Court and get
the speedy trial order. The sample petition is attached bellow. it takes 2-3
weeks only. 498A There are no provisions in law through which
engagement of advocate is compulsory. Person may file or defend any case
personally without engaging advocate. You may plead case of your relative
in court after securing power of attorney from your relative subject to
permission of council of 32 of Advocate Act.
Usually, you might get lot of contradictory points between the 498A FIR
and the petition of 125 of CrPC. Also you have lot of evidences as per the
reply of RTI and Firist (Lists of Dates) - which are valid evidences as per Sec.
3 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 (Circumstantial Evidence). These are enough
to prove in the court that your wife willfully has given false and fabricate
evidences to harass and extort you and to mislead the court process.
Please file perjury in the same courts where 498A and 125 CrPC is going on
respectively (Total 2 cases). Perjury can be file at any time if it is found that
the opponent is giving false and fabricated evidences. Perjury should be
taken as a separate miscellaneous criminal complaint. The Perjury sample
petition is attached bellow. Please also read my and other members posts
to get lot of judgements as citations of perjury. You can show those
citations to that judge during the argument of perjury. Good Luck!
In my 498a case trial started. She just taking date and date from last 1
year. 4 months ago BW issued against her for not appearing. In last to last
date her chief is over and in the very next date she did not appear for cross
by filling medical certificate from a private MBBS doctor. 17 jul 14 is fixed
for cross exam. She filed 498a through crpc 156(.3). She even send
complaint letter to my office before and after filling 498a. its is totally
contradictory with her court complaint. In office complaint she mentioned
that I started torture after 3 months and In the court complaint from the
very next day or our marriage. WE HAVE A LOVE MARRIAGE. In my office
complaint she did not mentioned that we(me my parents bro &sis)
tortured on her by asking money. she just stated that we tried to kill her
several times. She is treated as maid servent. She also request my boss to
take legal action against me and stated that she has no alternate option to
take legal action against me even after 1 month she complaint in the court.
All the witnesses statement (all are her relative and clearly mentioned
relation in the statement) very from each other and with that of the girl
even father statement recorded by police in Crpc 161 vary from her
daughter. I HAVE ALREADY CHANGED THE LAWYER.
Now you are on right track, better follow it up properly and effectively. Let
she make any complaint to anyone, if your conscious is clear, you can win
all the cases.
Maintenance 125(3) executions, 127 & perjury
Dear Experts, 498a, 125 Victim needs your immediate help. Please find the
details below & share your Expertise for a possible help.
1. Marriage Lasted for 3 Months Only. Husband Filed RCR & wife came
back. But again after delivering child she left matrimonial home with
conspiracy.
2. Wife Filed 125 & 498a in year 2008. in 125 wife stated herself as a
Household Lady. 3. Husband got anticipatory Bail in year 2009 from Delhi
High Court with a wordings "Reconcilations Failed because of Wife where
she demanded a seperate house , Husband accepted but again wife denied
to go. Also persual to FIR indicates No Cruelity done by Husband or In-Laws
on Wife. Bail Granted"
4.Wife succedded in 125 Interim Maintenance case by Showing Husband
Appointment Letter & Bank Statements attained with wrong practices and
got Interim Maintenance of Rs. 25000 Per Month from the application
Date.
5. Husband Filed Revision but Rejected in Sessions.
6. Husband Lost the Job due Depression & False Litigations.
7. Wife Filed Executions u/s 125(3) for 43 months @ of 25K per month.
And Husband Filed Divorce on Desertion Ground.
8. Husband stated that that no job then Trial First did W/A in which
nothing found. Then W/A where husband was arrested & by paying 25K
for the default of 1 month maintenence released from the Jail.
9. Wife filed executions late by 15 days without any condonation. Husband
fought for same under Limitation Act from Trial till High Court but all
excercise went in vain, as All forums said that 6 months time was given to
Husband to clear the arrears, Hence 125(3) was well in Limitations.
10. Husband filed application u/s 127 in Oct,2010. But Trial simply ignored
that & denied that husband earning 5000 only & issued NBW again.
Husband Lost job once again due to Court Litigations & Depression.
11. Husband with no other option left surrendered in court where Trial
court forced 50% payment & given orders to pay the monthly maintenace
& clear the rest of arrears in 6 months. Note Husband is job less & got help
from the Family & friends. Husband Accepted & NBW cancelled.
12. Husband again with hardship found a medioker Job of around 20K per
month. & Filed same as additional documents in 127 application along
with 340 Application as husband got the record of Wife's Ex Employers &
Bank Salary Satatements in which her salary for about an year was coming
before marriage of about 18K per month.
13. Wife filed non speaking reply in her 127.
14. 6 months have been passed. Husband obeyed the monthly payments.
But Wife lawyer raised an issue to clear rest of the arrears for about about
28 Months u/s 125(3).
15. Husband is not in a condition to pay arrears & filed Stay Application on
125(3) & Early disposal of 127 Application in Trial Court on the below
Basis:-
A) Wife has got the interim Maintenance Orders by Concealing the Matter
about her Capibility in her petition & in Affivadavit Evidence by stating
herself as a HouseHold Lady. Also refered the 340 Application annexed
along with wife's Boi Data & previous Bank Salary Statements (till the
month of Marriage).
B) Also mentioned where Trial court must consider the 127 as a defense
for husband in 125(3) executions & run both 125(3) & 127 hand in hand.
C) Also Mentioned about section24
Neeraj Agarwal vs Veeka Aggarwal case.
http://ipc498a.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/neeraj-agarwal-hma-
2007.pdf
D) Also mentioned about Delhi High Court Sanjay Bhardwaj Matter.
http://delhicourts.nic.in/Aug10/Sanjay%20Bhardwaj%20Vs.%20State.pdf
E) Gurubinder vs Manjit case in Delhi High Court
http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/SND/judgement/27-01-
2010/SND25012010CCP4822008.pdf
Now what are the chances of Relief for a Husband ? And what should be
the next course of Action for the Husband as already husband had lost the
reputed Job, seen Jail , Fighting with Depression to get thd relief in this
matter. Kindly Share the Relevant Judgements for Staying / Stopping or
slowing down the 125(3) as per Husband Capicity to avoid the Husband
Arrest. And Early Disposal of 340 as wife in this case is not filing reply.
You have a fittest case in hand. One cannot be allowed to obtain major
relief by making fraud with the court. Court is bound to first drcide the
aspect of fraud with the court under section 195 IPC and only thereafter its
fresh order is required to be pronounced under section 125(3) Criminal
Procedure code. I think, your should persue the matter of her previous
service and depsite of that obtaining relieif of interim maintenance by
keeping the court in darkness. You should insist the court to obtain an
affidavit from your wife to the effect whether she was in job at the time of
moving her application for maintenance or not. You have already obtained
relevant judgments.
In this case court will decide first your application under section 340 first.
But, I will not try to assess and suggest you regarding possible out come of
340 because it all depends on the language of the affidavit. It seems from
your discripttion that she was on the job and earning handsome amount
before marriage. If on the date of filing application under section 125, she
was job less, she could have told her to to be house wife as per law. In
deciding maintenance application under section 125, wife's prior
experience and ability to earn does not have much bearing except to the
extent that it reduces the quantum of maintenance. Further, the order of
maintainance is made on the facts and evidence available on record and
there is provision for alteration with change of circumsatances. As and
when you lost your job, you could have moved application for altering the
quantum as you have lost your job. But, from your facts it seems the same
was never done from your end and informed the court only while
execution proceedings. All this makes your matter much complicated and
needs further study of complete file for giving you appropriate advice
Dear Raj Kumar & Gautam Sir, First of All thanks a lot for your replies.
Few Highlights:- Husband Lost his First job in 2010 & Informed the Hon'ble
court in 1 of the Appication for Non Appearance exemption Application.
Same application is also there in court Records as well. This information
has been given in court by Husband in Year 2010 where as Executions were
filed in 2011. Also the 127 Application was filed by Husband in
October,2011 i.e. after the Wife's Executions Filing. Also at the time of
Filing 125 Petition i.e. 2008 & Filing Evidence Affidavit in year 2011 , Wife
has mentioned that She is a household Lady whereas Wife had worked
From year 2003 till April 2007. But no where she stated about her
Qualifications & Work Experience & concelaed her Capibility in order to
cause undue harrasment to Husband. I hope i had made the things more
clear, so that you experts can plish the next steps for the Husband to get
saved from unjustice. Please share your thuoghts.
Also my another Query is :-
On Last Date of Hearing Trial Judge Said as per Supreme Court Ruling one
must Clear the exiting arrears to go further. And Trial Judge deliberately
given the NDOH in March 2013 where as given the 125(3) execution
payment Dates with in few days only in order to force me to make more
payments.. Then we filed Early Hearing Application to dispose the 127
application as pleadings are already complete. But the Trial Judge rejected
that plea. Now How Husband will get saved especially in a scene as
mentioned above? Please share your thoughts.
Is it true that unless otherwise arrears are cleared the case can not
progress? Is there any citation (Supreme Court judgment) in this regard....?
Please help me with that judgement referene? Even if arrears are pending
the court must hear the crime/cheating done by the person approched the
court .... otherwise a person not able to pay money has to spend time in
jail for ever just beciase wife cheated the court nad court never gives
oppertunity to husband to bring fact to the court notice....
I am looking for same sort of Judgement/Citation where the Previous given
order must be amended with the Facts produced by accused where wife
cheated to show her as Housewife.
Dear Rahul Very true stuff you quoted but how to get this done from Trial
Court to consider before going forward in 125(3) executions. As Trial court
is more inclined towards 125(3) as on today. If you can share any template
of Application or Citations to achieve same then it will be greatful.
Thanks....
Perjury in CRPC 125
In CRPC 125 my wife mentioned my salry as 50K in Legal Notice dated
Apr'15, as 70K in Main Petetion dated July'15 and 1 lakh in Interim
Petetion dated July'15. On oath my wife said that my salary is 70K during
Chief Examination. Can this attract Perjury as my Salary information
provided incorrectly. The Plea of Maintenance is 30K in all the above as
30K.
Can you prove in the court that she knows your actual salary?
COURT WILL CHECK THE DOCUMENTS WHICH YOUR WIFE PROVIDED THAT
SHE KNOWS
Wife gave false affidavit in crpc 125 case Read more at:
Can I charge my wife with perjury for giving a false financial affidavit under
oath during our divorce? she has given a sworn affidavit that she is a
simple homemaker and has no means of earning, which is wrong as she
left us on 28 dec 13 (which she too mentioned in her affidavit) and at that
time she was working. she left her job after she left us in month of
february 14. She clearly mentioned and swore that she is a homemaker
and a burden on her parents and filed for maintenance of 24k against my
salary of 40k. She has 2 degrees of B.Com and B.Ed she was employed in
ICICI bank for last 4 years. I have her last 3 years TDS form 26AS she left job
after she left us. What further action can I take? Will her case for
maintenace be quashed? or do I still have to pay her maintenance even
after I prove that her filed sworn affidavit is false? there are no children
from this marriage. Marriage took place in 30 jan 13, I met with life
threatening accident on 14-april-14 and was bed ridden till 3-Jan-14, she
left on 28 dec 14. Author,
1. If she was not working on the date of swearing Affidavit then no perjury
case stands. 2. If she is qualified and was working and earning an income
then her ability to earn an income is prime facie proved before Court
provided your side highlights them. However a wife need not to live in
absolute penury or destitution to claim interim maintenance which is crux
of matter which needs apt counter handling by your side.
3. Year mentioned are wrong at two places in your brief, either it should
be 2013 or 2014 ! Whatever, it is for the Court to decide and/or take note
of and not me. Just thought to point them to you after reading your brief.
4. Contest her claims based on para 2.
Dear All, I am planning to file perjury in court (where my CrPC-125) is
running currently. Please give me guidelines for filing perjury on my wife.
She made all false allegations in the CrPC-125 petition. I have some
evidences and some are existing at living place (neighbour, and some
other). Priort o file CrPC-125, she filed 498A on my entire relatives who
never lived with her even single day. My relatives lived in one state and my
lived in some other state. When my wife filed 498A on me and my
relatives, hyderabad police did not visit crime place i.e, Bangalore. Still
they filed charge sheet by doing investigation at Hyderabad. The witnesses
agreed in their CrPC-161 statemnts that they never lived at Bangalore,
what they said that my wife said the allegations after she went to
Hyderabad after spending 22 days mf matrimonial life with me. I am
surprised how police did not visit Bnagalore (accepted by the Investigation
Officer through RTI reply) for investigation. What best can be done at this
stage
Kindly let me know whether CrPC-125 has jurisdiction to file. In the CrPC-
125 my wife said all the allegations happened at Bangalore but she filed it
in Hyderabad where she currently studying her PG.
yes she can file 125, if she stays there. it is the investigation officer, who
has to investigate the facts. he is duty bound to bringout the truths in
daylight. you have every right to file a case of perjury.
As per CrPC-177, correct me if I am wrong on the section No, enquiry and
trial should takes place in the jurisdiction where the offence is happened.
Here it seems violating the procedure ... Is there any reference whre it is
explicitely mentioned that CrPC-125 can be filed where ever wife lives. In
the case of HMA and DP Act sections it is clearly mentioned that wife can
file the cases where she currently lives. I did not find similar thing for CrPC-
125. Please sned some reference .
this relaxtation given to females. "enquiry and trial should takes place in
the jurisdiction where the offence is happened" - it is correct, but fir can be
done in other place, and the thana where fir lodged will send it to
appropriate thana for further action.
Dear Arup Kumar Gupta Sir, In that case CrPC-125 should be filed at the
place where enquiry and trail should happen. If some where else is filed,
then it should be transfered to the concern jurisdiction. Please tell me
where "relaxtation given to females" is mentioned explicitely or it is taken
for granted
some rulling is also there. now i am unable to give it. some other mamber
may give you. now it is general practice, that female get this advantage.
however it will not effect on the merits/demerits of the case.
6. I have already referred to Illustration (b) of S. 236 Cr.P.C. which states
that a person may be charged in the alternative and convicted of
intentionally giving false evidence, although it cannot be proved which of
the contradictory statements was false. Sri Vijaya Shankar has also relied
on Umrao Lal v. State, which is an authority for the proposition that in a
prosecution under S. 193 IPC. if the prosecution succeeds in proving that
the accused in the witness box deliberately made two statements which
are so contradictory and irreconcilable with each other, that both cannot
possibly be true, he can be convicted of perjury even without its being
proved which one of them was not true. and "giving false evidence in any
stage of the judicial proceeding". What is a 'judicial proceeding' is defined
in S. 4(m) Cr.P.C. it reads thus: "'Judicial proceeding' includes any
proceeding in the course of which evidence is or may be legally taken on
oath.
" Gangawwa vs State Of Mysore on 17/2/1967 Important Judgement:
Judgment of the Supreme Court in Re:
Suo Motu Proceedings against R. Karuppan, Advocate, (2001) 5 SCC 289.
Should i file perjury case against wife
Dear LCI members, DV case filed by wife has been dismissed by the JMFC
court. She has filed same case under section 125 in family court. Can I file
perjury case against my wife for making false allegations against me and
my family members? Will it have any effect on ongoing crpc 125 case?
HI there, Can you say how your case was dismissed as I am going through it
as well. As far as I understand perjury is for false allegations, also things
like fabrication of false evidence, lying under oath. Rowers can tell you
exactly
Thanks a lot ld. members for your replies. Here are few key points in the
judgment:
1. She alleged that she was not provided any medical treatment during
pregnancy I submitted all her medical records of her pregnancy . She
admitted that she was take to to doctors and she took medicines as well.
The judgment says that I have provide medical treatment to her and my
child also.
2.She alleged that she was never allowed to go out of house and she was
no allowed to talk to her parents anytime I submitted the certificates of
educational institutes where she did few courses after marriage .She
admitted that she used to go out and attend her classes. Also she herself
admitted that she used to talk to her parents on mobile phone which I had
gifted her.The judment says that based on her admissions ,her claim is
suspicious that she was forced to stay inside home and was not allowed to
talk to her parents.
3. In her application she mentioned that she never returned to my house
after birth of our child and I avoided to take her back to my home She
herself admitted that she came back and we lived together for 6 months
until she returned to her parent’s house for her cousin’s wedding.The
judgment says that she actually came back to her matrimonial home after
brth of her child , so based on her admissions ,her claim is suspicioust hat I
avoided to bring her back to my home There are other points like this. The
judment says that she could not prove that she has been subjected to any
kind of doemstic violence.Can I file prejury case based on these facts.There
is no clear wording like "alleagtiosn are false" etc. in the judgment . Please
advice me If i can file prejury case based on above facts. Thanks a lot.
you have gone through lot of mental torture on account of false DV case
and the case against you has been dismissed . the allegations made by
your wife have not been substanaited in court . rather tahn filing case of
perjury i would advise you to move on in life . you would be wasting youtr
time running around courts and spending money on litgation expenses .
move on in life
my ex has made many lies in her transfer petition in SC and I objected
there also even then the case was transfered to her place and now she has
not been attending court there also. Can I file perjury at my place
regarding all her lies in affidavit in TP in SC.all the case of action is at my
place as per her statement. Will be accepted? Please advice. Rgds, Raj
Dear Experts, Fighting for DV & CRPC 125 case.
We have asked the greedy wife to file the detailed affidavit to show her
well versed academic background to judge so we can move on to reject her
interim nd also to file PERJURY u/s 340 CrPC againt them for filing my
wrong salary under the oath.
Questions :
1) Can i file Section 340 against them as they have mentioned my salary is
50 lakh per annum but my salary is lesser. While i was in abroad for official
visit, my father in law has visited my office in india before filing the case
and confirned my salary ,designation and job location. I have details of his
name , phone number, date and signature in my office VISITORS REGISTER
and my boss has emailed my stated that my FIL has confirmed my salary ,
and job location ,Yet my boss has resigned few months back but still have
that EMAIL. On the basis of this ground shall i move ahead to file perjury
case against them ? What are demerits & merits if i file the same

Case for Perjury will not stand. Your FIL can claim that apart from your
salary you get money in cash from other business activities/investment.
Dont waste your time on this, rather gather proof of wife's qualifications
and work exp What is her qualification and overwork exp?? Is she working
now ? Lay hands on her CV from online Job portals and present the same
to the court. If you need help for free then PM me her email id n i will send
you her CV if present on any job portal. iF YOUR WIFE IS WELL EDUCATED
AND CAPABLE TO EARN THEN SHE SHOULD NOT SIT IDLE BUT WORK. There
are many HC rulings that disallows maintenance for educated/experienced
women unless there is a huge gap between the couples income.
Thanks for the revert dear. Wife has done BA, MA, MBA, B.ED AND M.ED.
She was working before and after marraige yet no idea whether she is
working now or not.However i have her solid proof of her all the academic
qualification but doesnt have her resume. Also, my boss has emailed me
stated that my FIL has visted and confimed my salary which is exact the
same in my bank statement and in salary slip. Then why the hell he has
mentioned my salary higher in petition ? would it not help me to file 340??
and i know she is working but doent have the proof but we have stated in
arguments that she is working and we have the proof of her worrk and
asked the opposite part to file the detailed affidavit so we can file 340.
Now her lawyer has started delaying the case and asked for 20 lakhs to
end the case :) Is that a right strategy and hope it would work
Few Observations and interpretations Merely stating in arguments that
you have proof of your wife work employment will not convince the court,
court relies on documentary evidences at stage of Interim maintenance.
Just arguments are not enough However it seems your wife is scared and
presumes you have gathered all evidences of her employment.....may be
MOST IMPORTANT - I would suggest present documentary evidences of
her employment to make your case strong, she will reduce the 20L amount
further. Submit the CV and call the Online job portal company as a witness
to confirm her CV on their portal/records....... There are few HC
judgements where on proper application of the husband the court can ask
both the parties to submit their financial documents on
AFFIDAVIT........since you dont have anything to hide you should do this
immediately. ALWAYS REMEMBER FAMILY COURT IS WHERE THE
FOUNDATION/ BASICS OF YOUR CASE ARE DISCUSSED/ TRIED....LEAVE NO
STONE UNTURNED TO PROJECT YOUR EFFORTS IN EXPOSING YOUR WIFE'S
LIES BY PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCES/ APPLICATIONS. Also do not expect
justice to be delivered by FC easily as laws are in favour of women........HC
are the places where decisions of maintenance denials to employed and
lazy wife's are delivered (on merits)
agree with you brother but... "Its not the will to WIN, but the WILL to
prepare to WIN that makes the difference "
Perjury in crpc 125 rejected, want to file in high court
Dear All, I wanted to know that under which section of CrPC will I have to
file the revision/appeal against the Order of Family Court in HIgh Court u/s
340. The Family Court has decided the CrPC 125 finally without disposing
the CrPC 340 application. Then after 3 days the Family court rejected the
CrPC 340 application stating that there is no prima facie evidence to hold
the preliminary enquiry. Want to know that under what revelant section of
CrPC I need to file the case in HIGH COURT
Then after 3 days the Family court rejected the CrPC 340 application
stating that there is no prima facie evidence to hold the preliminary
enquiry.
Dear Querist if you had filed application/complaint u/s 340 cr.PC before
the court and court held that there is no prima facia case made out for
holding enquiry for 340 Cr.PC and you think that this order is not fair you
can file an Appeal before Session court if the order passed by magistrate
u/s 341 of Cr.PC
(1) Any person on whose application any court other than a High Court has
refused to make a complaint under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2)
ofsection 340, or against whom such a complaint has been made by such
court, may appeal to the court to which such former court is subordinate
within the meaning of sub-section (4) of' section 95, and the superior court
may thereupon, after notice to the parties concerned, direct the
withdrawal of the complaint or, as the case may be, making of the
complaint which such former court might have made under section 340,
and if it makes such complaint, the provisions of that section shall apply
accordingly.
(2) An order under this section and subject to any such order, an order
under section 340, shall be final, and shall not be subject to revision.
Yes Sec 341 is the remedy, but practically speaking success is very very rare
in these cases. Only benefit is.....opp party is pressurized
Thanks Mr. Nadeem Qureshi, Thanks for the reply but may i know that the
Appeal against the Order of Family Court are maintainable only in High
Courts???? Because according to famliy courts act section 19. "
(1) save as provided in sub-section
(2) and notwithstanding anything contained in the CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, 1908 or in the CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 or in
any other law, an appeal shall lie from every judgement or order, not being
an interlocutory order, of a Family Court to the High Court both on facts
and on law." So reading this I assume that I need to file the appeal in High
Court rather than Session Court....will you pls put some light on the
same????
Dear All,
This is to inform u all that I have filled the Revision Application u/s 397 r/w
401 against the Family Courts Order on Perjury; in Bombay High Court's
Nagpur Bench on 21st Dec 2012...... Till date there is no update on the
case...the case status shows 7th Jan 2013 and since then no status
updates.....
Today I receive the notice from Family Court u/s 128 CrPC. What Shld I do
in High Court to get Stay....on the proceedings..... Im fighting Party-In-
Person
Dear Expert, Kindly resolve the following query :-
Wife main petition filed u/s 125 crpc disposed against husband, by Family
Court. Husband challanged the family court order in High Court, still
pending. Wife's advocate filed Vakalatnama in High Court case and
contesting it. After wards, Wife filed recovery case u/s 125(3) crpc and lie
on oth. Husband have proof of her lie's. Now husband want's to file
perjury case u/s 340 crpc rws 195 crpc and 182/211, 191, 192, 193, 197,
420 ....etc IPC.
My question is as follows :
1). What is the limitation period for filing case u/s 340 crpc rws 195 crpc ?
2). Whether their is a limitation period for case u/s 182 and 211 IPC ?
3). Whether Husband can present case In-Person or done only by
advocates ?
4). Whether such cases are maintainable and success rate in it ? Please
reply and help urgently.
1. In your case, the matter is pending in which the wife has committed
perjury. So, there is no limitation, you may file complaint u/s 340 to the
court where she has committed perjury.
2. Limitation is stated in Sec 468 below.
3. husband can appear. There is no bar, but advisable to engage a diligent
advocate who is well experienced in such matters.
4. There have been successful cases in the past. But why bother about the
Past ? Be the First One. Be brave and win. CrPC 468: Section 468 of the
Criminal Procedure Code Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period
of limitation Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no
Court, shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in Sub-
Section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. The period of
limitation shall be- six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only;
one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not
exceeding one year; three years, if the offence is punishable with
imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three
years. For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation, in relation
to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with
reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe
punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment.
You can argue your case before a court of law, but not for your father or
son, who have to engage a lawyer. As a power of attorney holder for
someone, you may sign sale deeds and agreements on his behalf, but you
cannot argue for him in a court of law unless specifically permitted. The
Supreme Court has ruled that except for petitioner in person, no one other
than advocates are permitted to argue cases on behalf of others. Even
officials cannot argue a case in court on behalf of the company in which
they are employed, it said. "A natural person can, of course, appear in
person and argue his own case personally but he cannot give a power of
attorney to anyone other than a person who is enrolled as an advocate to
appear on his behalf," ordered a bench of Justices Markandey Katju and
Gyan Sudha Misra in an order last week. "To hold otherwise would be to
defeat the provisions of the Advocates Act," the bench said ruling out an
ailing person giving power of attorney to his son to argue a petition filed
by him in a court. Even allowing a person to argue his case before a court is
not a matter of right. "It is a discretion conferred by the Act on the court to
permit anyone to appear in a particular case even though he is not
enrolled as an advocate," it said. That said, you should be aware of certain
difficulties that you may face. No doubt, you would be the master of the
facts of your case. But, you should also have a working knowledge of law,
procedures and to some extent, the court-craft. If you don’t know the
procedural and legal nuances, you may lose on important points. The
courts have become slave to their own procedures. These procedures are
required to followed mechanically even if they may appear to be ridiculous
or obsolete. And, there are too many of them. Courts won’t allow you to
digress from the established procedures. Even for filing a petition, there is
a set procedure which may differ from court to court. Just to give an
example, in Supreme Court, each annexure has be certified as true copy on
its last page; in Delhi High Court each annexure has to be certified as true
copy on each page; and, in Central Administrative Tribunal, each annexure
has to be certified as true copy on the first and last page. So, you must
know what to do where, otherwise you’ll have to keep spending your time
and energy in curing the defects of filing, etc. After all, time also has some
value in terms of money. This is just one requirement, there are so many
others in each court. You’ll have to learn these by trial and error. This is
not to scare you, but to caution you of the difficulties. As it is said, practice
makes a man perfect. By continuously practicing in a court, advocates
acquire knowledge of the law and procedures in a court. If you want to
fight your own case, you’ll have to learn the tricks of the game from square
one and will have to master those skills quite fast, since you are learning at
the cost of your own case. You should also be aware that many of the
presiding officers in the courts (i.e., the judges) may not look at the party
in person in a favourable way. This is because a party in person may take
extra time and say many unnecessary things and may not know the law
and procedure; so, many judges lose patience. At the same time, I have
seen some good judges who give a sympathetic hearing to a party in
person. So, it all depends. Thus, if you have an aptitude for law (and, more
so, if you have a degree in law), go ahead and fight your own case in court,
without engaging a lawyer. The law does not stop you from fighting your
own case and you have every right to do so. It is only the lack of
knowledge of law and procedure that may pose difficulties. One more
option could perhaps be to fight your own case, but take guidance (about
procedures and basic provisions of law) from some junior upcoming
advocate who may not charge you much. If you want to appear as PARTY
IN PERSON you can file a Petition u/s 302(2) CrPC, 1973 for Criminal Cases
and U/O-3 , R-1, C.P.C ,1908 for Civil Cases. If you appreciate my reply
kindly click on the like button here or on my profile page by visiting it,
whose link is given below amd convey

Thanks to all expert for detailed guidence. But when an application u/s 340
crpc r.w.s 195 crpc and 191, 192, 193.....182 and 211 IPC would be filed,
whether there is a need to file an limitation application for IPC 182, 211 ?
as false statement on supported affidavit in court were made more than
1year 8 month back. If yes, kindly provide me format for such application.
Regards DVK Kumar. Even the false affidavit were filed befor more than a
year still when you will file the application of perjury. You have to argue
whether you can file the application at this stage or not? There are many
templates available on google about said application, You may go through
them but i personally suggest, to deeply study and figure out all the false
statements before drafting the application. As no court is interesed to
entertain these type of application and you need to raise strong points in
your favour. So draft the application with utmost care.
Can 340 CrPC be invoked for false / forged document produced, just
before dictation of judgment in CoCP against SBI ? That forged FDR became
the basis of dismissal of CoCP ! can we file perjury case in crpc125
Hello mates, Can husband file perjury case in crpc 125 case? if yes can we
file this perjury based on her false allegations, prior to evindence stage of
main MC. what are the pre-conditions for filing a perjury? can anyone
explain in detail.
PERJURY IN IPC IS FILED IF U STRONGLY HAVE EVIDENCES/WITNESS OF
FALLS STATEMENTS OR FORGERY MATERIALS ARE USED IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF COURT PROCESS (CRPC 340) by the other side. In any
court proceedings if have such evidences you can file a perjury petition.
I thank you so much for providing this link. I too thank Mr. Arun sir, for his
eloberated explanation on Perjury. Its awesome...!!
File Application under Section 340 Cr.P.C beforte the same court. Read
more at:
What i understood, As per Mr. Aejaz's link, Its not a good idea to file
perjury under section 340 crpc, before the opposite party files their false
allegations in the form of affadavit or under oth..
Please correct me if i am wrong Read more at:
In order to sustain and maintain sanctity and solemnity of the proceedings
in law courts it is necessary that parties should not make false or
knowingly, inaccurate statements or misrepresentation and/or should not
conceal material facts with a design to gain some advantage or benefit at
the hands of the court, when a court is considered as a place where truth
and justice are the solemn pursuits. If any party attempts to pollute such a
place by adopting recourse to make misrepresentation and is concealing
material facts it does so at its risk and cost.
 PROSECUTION OF PERJURY:
1. Legal obligation to state the truth
2. The making of a false statement .
3. Belief in its falsity.
Criteria for establishing offense:
(a) The statement is false
(b) The parson making the statement knew or believed it to be false or did
not believe it to be true.
(c) The statement was made intentionally.
All three criteria must be proved for conviction. Intention is most
important. False evidence is said to be given intentionally, if, the person
making the statement is aware or has knowledge that it is false and has
deliberately used such evidence in a judicial proceeding with the intention
of deceiving the court.
ELEMENTS OF PERJURY:
1) False statement made by a person Who is --
a) Bound by an oath
b) By an express provision of law
c) A declaration which a person is bound by law to make on any subject d)
Which statement or declaration is false and which he either knows or
believes to be false or does not believe to be true.
2. Oath must be administered by a person of competent authority. The
authority must be competent to administer the oath. The proceedings
where oath is administered must be sanctioned by law.
3. Express provisions of law include—Plaints, Written Statements, and
other pleadings.
a) CPC casts a legal duty to speak the truth
b) Verification of pleadings is a legal obligation. 4. Affidavits are
declaration made under oath.
 5. A statement could be verbal or otherwise. Due to this the related other
section which can be used are : IPC 191:
Giving false evidence, judicial perjury IPC 192:
Fabricating false evidence IPC 193:
punishment for offenses u/s 191 & 192 IPC IPC 194 & 195:
Aggravated forms of offenses u/s 191 & 192 IPC IPC 196 to 200:
Offenses punishable in the same way as giving or fabricating false
evidence IPC 201 to 229:
Offenses against public justice OFFENCES U/S 195 CrPC:
(a) IPC 172 to IPC 188 relate to contempts of the lawful authority of public
servants and also of attempt to commit or conspiracy to commit such
offense or abatement there of.
(b) IPC 193, 194, 195, 196, 199, 200, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211 and
228, when such offense is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation
to, any proceeding in any court.
CrPC 195: Generally any person can lodge complaint of an offence and set
the law in motion. Exception to this rule is offences Specified u/s 195 CrPC.
Section 195 lays down rules to be followed by the court to take cognizance
of an offence specified under it. Court has full discretion in deciding
whether any prosecution is necessary or not. Considerations for
sanctioning prosecution:
a) Administration of justice is not hampered
b) Not to be used as a means for wreaking vengeance by people
c) Every incorrect or false statement does not make it incumbent upon the
court to order prosecution.
d) Judicial discretion to order prosecution only in the larger interest of
administration of justice.
 e) When police finds that complaint was false and case is cancelled u/s
173 CrPC, the police can start proceeding u/s 211 IPC against person who
lodged false complaint. CrPC 340:
Section 340 CrPC lays down directions for the guidance of the court which
desires to initiate prosecution in respect of an offence covered under IPC
195. Court can take action and make a complaint to concerned magistrate
u/s 340 either suo motu or on an application made to it on that behalf.
Sanction of the public servant court is a must for offenses in
(a) under Criteria for establishing offence. Sanction of the court is a must
for offenses in
(b). under Criteria for establishing offense. Any Civil, Revenue or criminal
court can proceed under this section. Person against who proceedings are
initiated has no right to participate in preliminary Inquiry. The trial for the
offence will be held by the magistrate based on complaint by the court
acting u/s 340 sanctioning prosecution. The order is appealable only once
and no second appeal or revision lies. Requirements for starting
prosecution: The court is not bound to start prosecution. Only if it is
expedient in the interest of justice and affects administration of justice.
Contradictory evidence is not enough for prosecution. Offence must have
been committed intentionally. Perjury should appear to be deliberate and
conscious. Conviction is reasonable probable or likely. Reasonable
foundation for the charge must exist. Statement given by complainant in
FIR u/s 154 cannot be basis of prosecution u/s 340. Statements given to
police u/s 161 are not evidence.
PROCEDURE:
Receive application or suo motu – application can be filed by a person not
party to the proceedings in relation to which the offense is committed. The
court where application is filed only decides if inquiry should be made Hold
preliminary inquiry (not essential in law). Record findings . Make a
complaint in writing - include offence, facts on which it is based and
evidence available for proving it. The judge has to sign the complaint
himself. Forward it to a first class Magistrate having jurisdiction. IPC 192:
No condition to be bound by oath. Reasonable prospect of proceedings
and intention to use the fabricated evidence in such proceedings.
Proceedings need not be in progress. Material omission is made in an entry
or a statement Affidavit- making a document containing false statement to
be used as evidence in a judicial proceeding. Criteria: Particular Intention
that false document so made should appear in evidence in a judicial
proceeding. Reasonable prospect of using the document is sufficient to
establish offence. Should be material to the result of the proceedings-
Judge is made to entertain an erroneous opinion touching nay point
material to the result of such proceeding based on such fabricated
evidence. IPC 199: False statement made in declaration which is by law
receivable as evidence. IPC 200: Using as true such declaration knowing it
to be false.
Read a judgment about the above in
Vijay Syal Vs. State of Punjab Not only for 125 but for all ,what iam
suggesting is to File an application with court under apt section. Eg: Section
340 (If wrong confinement), 193, 195, 199, 200 etc if perjury is a false
affidavit/ written submission/ oral submission in court proceedings etc.
Court will then:
1. Take suo moto action.
2. Conduct an inquiry.
Both parties will sign respective statements in the court. Court will then
record its findings and one of its officers will sign it. This complaint i.e.
from the court will be forwarded to a first class magistrate.
3. That magistrate has the power to deliver a sentence under the clause of
perjury. Law will get applied and apt justice will be done. Perjury is making
wrong/false statement on oath before the court in a legal proceeding or
before any person of authority in other matter. What is most important
ingredient of perjury is that the accused should be aware or should have
knowledge such false statement, it is not necessary that all wrong or false
statement amount to perjury as this false or wrong statement may have
been made by the accused on the basis of some information or wrong
knowledge for which he may not be having intention of committing
perjury in any matter. If in all cases where one of the party to the suit who
losses the legal case in the court is involved for perjury by the other party
then we shall be having double the number of cases pending in the courts
which not so. The Indian Penal Code (IPC) under Section 191 defines
perjury as "giving false evidence" and by interpretation it includes the
statements retracted later as the person is presumed to have given a "false
statement" earlier or later, when the statement is retracted. But hardly
anyone, including the legal experts, could recall a single case in which a
person was prosecuted for making a false statement before the court.
Under section 191 of IPC, an affidavit is evidence and a person swearing to
a false affidavit is guilty of perjury punishable under Section 193 IPC which
prescribes the period of punishment as seven years imprisonment.
However, action against making a false statement should be initiated
during the trial itself, and not at the end of it — which may take a long
time. That may be a deterrent against persons who intentionally mislead
the court or make false statements under oath or file tainted affidavits
much against the public good. This is one of the reasons — initiating action
against a person for perjury after the trial is over — why in India several
perjury cases go totally unnoticed as a fresh trial begins on perjury running
into years.
 The said article of D Arun is basically from my article on forum.498a.org
http://www.498a.dreamhosters.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4241
&hilit=matter+of+concern+that+in+the+Indian+judicial+system
It is Dr. D Arun Kumar's way of flattering me that he posted it on this
forum, read the original article and ensuing discussion to know more about
perjury.
Family Law Vs. Perjury; some gyan
For better understanding of this thread, please read CrPC 195 and CrPC 340
and IPC sections as mentioned in the respective Codes. I have taken literal
meaning of them and not exact words of these Sections for point of view
of layman's understanding. Perjury in simple terms means a crime in which
a person has knowingly lied after taking an oath to tell the truth. Or when
testifying in court through legal document like Affidavit. This lie must be
material to the matter concerned so that it results in miscarriage of justice.
Now, as you all know that I am no legal pundit or an advocate, but I would
try to explain this as clearly as possible in the terms as I understand.
However, please don't treat this as gospel truth and contact your counsel
for much much better understanding. To further explain what kind of lies
in court can attract perjury, as there is a broad set of lies which can attract
perjury, the thumb rule is that to attract perjury such statement should
satisfy following:
1. The statement was given when bound by oath. That means either during
evidence stage after administration of oath or on a sworn affidavit.
2. That statment is false and the person giving such statement knew that
such a statement is false. (unknowing lie or a make believe lie does not
attarct perjury, I can explain this if someone is in any doubt as to what it
means and if someone wants at a later stage.)
3. That statement was made intentionally to cause miscarriage of justice.
(That means it touches the material point of the case in question, which
can either befool court or mislead the court in passing orders, which can
result in undue harm to other party or unlawful gains to the party giving
statement. i.e. Knowing that A earns Rs. 5000/- and not entitled to any
relief, A states under oath that he is unemployed. or A accuses B of beating
him on X date and time at Y place, to get B imprisoned. Whereas there was
no possibility that B could have done so on X date and time at Y place as B
on X date and time was at Z place which makes it impossible that B could
have been at Y place also at the same date and time. or A states that he
saw B doing a certain unlawful act at X date and time at Y place, whereas A
himself at X date and time was at Z place, which means he could not have
seen B committing any crime at Y place. Now all these conditions can cause
miscarriage of justice.) Hence, there would be certain lies which does not
attract perjury, like A stating his wrong age in proceedings where whether
A is 20 years old or 30 years old makes no diffirence. Also, there is another
interesting aspect, willful ommission. That means A though is earning Rs.
5000/- and not entitled to any relief, neither states that A is unemployed
nor states his true income. Is that perjury? Yes, it is. If the express
provision of the law provides that A is entitled for relief only if he is
unemployed. i.e. In CrPC 125, the express provision of the law is that only
the women who has no source of livelihood is entitled to claim
maintenance. By not stating her income that woman is inducing the court
to believe that she is not earning and thus liable for perjury. So these kind
of ommissions can attract perjury on a case to case basis, however not
always. For more details, please refer to the following Judgement. Now,
that we have got basic understanding of what is perjury, the next stage is
how to file a perjury complaint. Here comes the first bar. We call it the bar
of CrPC 195. Though this bar is applicable to many cases, in perjury, CrPC
195 bars any private complaint dealing with offences punishable under
sections 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to 211 and 228, when such offences is
alleged to have been committed in, or relation to the proceedings of the
court except on the complaint in writing of that court, or of some other
court to which that court is subordinate. The way out is given in CrPC 340
and CrPC 341, which says the court can suo-motto or upon an application
(the word application has a meaning akin to request) forms an opinion that
"it is expedient in the interest of Justice" (Note these words, that means
that if such a proceeding is not carried out, it would be miscarriage of
justice) that inquiry of such allegations be carried out, should after
preliminary inquiry, is any, as it thinks necessary (to make out whether the
prejury has been committed) should:
1. Record a finding to this effect.
2. Make a complaint thereof "in writing":
3. Send the person accused of committing perjury to a magistrate of first
class jurisdiction by taking sufficient security or under arrest as the severity
of the offence of perjury may be. And, when the concerned court has not
taken any action of such application. The applicant may move higher court
under CrPC 341 as appeal. The party against whom any such action is taken
is also free to move in for appeal in the same manner. The higher court
may order withdrawl of complaint or direct filing of complaint as the case
maybe. Of course, it can also agree with the finding of the below court.
And CrPC 343 states that the magistrate to whom such a complaint is
made. (Not to the magistrate or judge to whom application is made, but to
whom the complaint is forwarded in writing by that Judge or Mgistate to
whom one made an application) should deal with such complaint as if the
same is made on a Police Report (namely chargesheet). So the lesson is
that one can not be complainant in perjury proceedings. One can only be
the applicant. The concerned court is the complainant. Now what happens
to the main case. The case is generally deferred till this perjury issue is
decided. But this is not necessary. The court can still proceed with other
aspects of the case. Though nowhere written in the code, but an unwritten
rule is that perjury complaints are filed when there is high likelyhood of
the person against whom perjury proceendings are started being
convicted. (or if its written somewhere, I might have overlooked, no willful
omission here But this lesson, what we learnt in above pasaage, is also not
iron clad.
In Marwah Vs Marwah, the apex court has ruled that the aggrieved party
can not be left remedyless. Hence it has allowed private complaint in that
particular case. There are few other success stories in this and associated
forums based on the same judgement. Why law is like this is a long story,
but the lawmakers had some noble intentions of keeping it this way to
stop misuse of this provision and reduce litigation. (Guess, if every
application was accepted, there would be a 3 fold increase in cases.) So to
summarise:
1. The court is not bound to start prosecution even if some lie has been
made in the court under oath or affidavit.
2. It is bound to take action only if it is expedient in the interest of justice
and affects administration of justice.
3. Perjury should appear to be deliberate and conscious, meaning that the
offence of perjury has been committed intentionally.
4. There is likelyhood of conviction. For that the foundation should be
reasonable and supported by strong evidence. Now, let me also add as a
footnote what does not amount to perjury.
1. The complaint which becomes the basis of FIR is not basis of prosecution
u/s 340. You have to wait for the complainant to depose before the court.
2. The witness statements given to police u/s 161 are not evidence and can
not be basis of prosecution u/s 340. You have to wait for all such
witnessess to depose before the court.
3. Mere contradictory evidence is not enough for prosecution. However,
two such contradictory statements, which can not both be true at the
same time by any flight of imagination and touches the material point of
the case can be the basis of perjury.
So in 498-A and maintenance and DV kind of cases, the material point of
the case can be:
1. Factum of marriage. (Whether there was a marriage or not)
2. The income of any of the spouses.
3. Any date and time of alleged cruelty, which can be countered in a
manner as shown by example shown above.
4. Date and Time of last staying together and Reason of leaving (only if
supported by strong evidence)
5. Witnessess who claim to be present at the date and time of alleged
cruelty.
6. Two contradictory statements, which can not both be true at the same
time by any flight of imagination.
7. The list of articles given as dowry, if she is claiming anything lawfully
yours as her own.
Now, the punishment.
The perjury can be punished upto seven years or an if the perjury was
committed to bring the accused to imprisonment of life or death penality
by upto 10 years and fine. However, the court can impose lesser sentence
and fine depending upon the severity of the offence. Another thing to be
noticed is that, a person can retract his statement in court by filing an
apology before perjury application is accepted and telling the truth. That
would mean condonation of perjury. But note that such filing of the
retractment of statement has to be done before the other party files
perjury application. It is also a crime to induce another person to commit
perjury that is called suboration of perjury.
In case of any question / query, please feel free to punch me. I would try to
answer to the best of my knowledge and capabilities.
PS: The following are from articles I found on net, it is apt to quote some
excerpts here: It is taken for granted that the Indian judicial system turns a
blind eye to the incidence of perjury. Although perjury occurs regularly in
the Indian courts, nothing concrete is done to eradicate this evil. It is
shocking when one considers the number of witnesses who lie under oath
in courts everyday. This insidious practice erodes the very fabric of justice.
It cannot be denied that the incidence of perjury in India is widespread. In
fact, the Supreme Court has also said, "unscrupulous litigants are found
daily resorting to utter blatant falsehood in the courts also, "most of the
witnesses... make false statements to suit the interests of the parties
calling them." In fact, in a recent case, the Supreme Court ordered a
complaint of perjury to be filed against Advocate R. Karuppan, who was
also president of the Madras High Court Advocates Association. The apex
court, while stating, "If the system is to survive, effective action is the need
of the time," also acknowledged the fact that perjury was "not an
exception to the general practice being followed by many of the litigants in
the country." Unfortunately, however, one must consider that Karuppan
may well have been able to elude the law, if the aggrieved party not been
Chief Justice of India, A.S. Anand, himself. A major setback in the
administration of justice is the extremely over-burdened legal system. The
numerous cases of perjury that proliferate the system cannot possibly be
dealt with. To best illustrate this, we have the Prem Chand Paniwala case,
tried by the Supreme Court, about twenty years ago. The judgment threw
light on the manner in which the police themselves abet perjury in criminal
cases. Paniwala was a witness, regularly called upon by the Delhi police to
substantiate--- in most cases-- falsely a particular testimony. He also
produced the summons he received in hundreds of criminal cases. Once he
decided he had enough, Paniwala decided to stop appearing as a stock
witness. The police retaliated by implicating him in a couple of criminal
cases and even initiated action to extern him from Delhi. This finally
prompted him to take recourse in the Supreme Court. What is most
interesting to note is that though the Supreme Court reprimanded the
police for abusing the judicial process with their stock witnesses, it fell
short of reopening the other cases that Paniwala had testified in.
The reason: the courts are just too busy! This is a deplorable state of
affairs, especially when one remembers that in Britain, the bestselling
novelist and peer in the House of Lords, Jeffrey Archer, was sentenced to
jail for fabricating his own diary in a libel suit. The basic attitude towards
perjury is radically different. In Britain, the matter of perjury is so serious
that a man of Archer''s stature could be convicted for four years! In U.S.
federal law, and in most states, a false statement must be material to a
point of inquiry in order to constitute perjury. It is a matter of concern that
in the Indian judicial system, so little importance is given to perjury. It is
absolutely necessary to emphasise the importance of ensuring respect for
the rule of law and human rights when it comes to administering justice
properly and expeditiously. Any excuses that the courts have more than
enough to contend with in terms of the great backlog of cases must not be
accepted. One has only to consider the numerous litigants who have
suffered on account of unscrupulous witnesses to bring home the
seriousness of the problem to be. The plight of these hapless victims of
perjury can never be redressed.
Very beautifully written article. No exaggeration and no circasism that
made this article authentic, readable and enjoyable. I hope the writer
would keep up this spirit while dealing with the important questions of
law.
 A very nicely written article on Perjury. It is not very common because
sometimes lawyers do not educate their party on this as it increases their
'workload'. I have seen this in one of my friend's case. If this is made
popular among the people and used effectively then the number of false
dowry cases will automatically come down.
Another thing to be noticed is that, a person can retract his statement in
court by filing an apology before perjury application is accepted and telling
the truth. That would mean condonation of perjury. But note that such
filing of the retractment of statement has to be done before the other
party files perjury application. It is also a crime to induce another person
to commit perjury that is called suboration of perjury. Sir, I did not
understand this point can u pls clarify becasue i filed 340 crpc against my
husband including his advocate for obtaining fraudelent exparte decree. as
per which effects adminstration of justice because taking the procedures in
wrong way by misleading the court willfully .now the application was
accepted by family court and notices were send to them they have to file
counter for that one and they keep on asking permissions from 5 months
so how the above stament is connected to this
The proposed accused are using delay tactics to file reply to already
admitted / accepted your S. 340 complaint so bold quoted para is not
applicable / connected with your facts. BTW, till date there has been no
single conviction under Family Law under perjury. The maximum perjury
under family law has done is that one of the SLP (crl) has reached SC that is
all ! So you may create precedent if you may like to.
To the least, The court should at least dismiss the whole case immediately,
if the petitioner commits perjury or any offense captured under 195 r/w
340. Else if defendent commits this type of act, court should expedite the
case in favour of petitioner quickly using balance of convenience and
raising the doubt on veracity of defendent's say. But even these above
things aren't happening.
Dear Experts, If a lady files CRPC 125 and mentions in all the three -
main petition,
interim petition and
chief affidavit
that she has no source of income and is entirely dependent on the mercy
of her parents. But she was working at the time of filing the main petition,
interim petition and chief affidavit. She was not awarded interim
maintenance but the child was awarded interim. Her cross is completed
but we did not ask her whether she is working anywhere or not. Husbands
cross is pending. Main case is not yet disposed. Suppression of material
fact amounts to fraud with court. Does Perjury apply in CRPC 125 in the
above scenario ? Kindly advise. What precautions should be taken to make
the perjury petition successful without getting rejected in the family court.
Kindly share your tips & suggestions on getting the perjury petition getting
admitted successfully. If Perjury is filed, does the main case gets stalled
until perjury is decided or does perjury and main case proceed parallelly ?
Thanks in advance.
First of Perjury is to be proved. You have to recall her by filing an
application under Sec. 311 of Cr.P.C and cross examine her on the aspect,
contradicting her by showing any proof if any your client is having. Just a
suggestion is not sufficient. Your client has to adduce evidence that the girl
is working at the time of the filing of the petitions. If that is proved you
have a case of perjury, then file a complaint on that aspect seperately.
Thanks Mr. for your advise.
I have a question :
When the lady has given an affidavit on oath that she does not have any
source of Income and entirely dependent on the mercy of her parents, and
husband has a (documentary) proof to show to the court that she is
working, is it required to summon her u/s 311 Cr.P.C to record her
evidence ? My concern is when she is summoned u/s 311 she may say that
she was working and forgot to mention in the Main petition/Interim
Petition & Chief affidavit, then would it not scuttle the chance of the
husband from filing petition u/s 340 Cr.P.C for perjury ? Husband may lose
a golden chance of Perjury... Cant the husband initiate Perjury based on
the proof and her admission in affidavits given on oath ?

yes he can. in ur evidence, file the evidence that she was working at the
time of filing the petition then file 340 then prey the court to separate the

340 application from main petition.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.1115/07.
7. Whenever an application under Section 340 of Code of Criminal
Procedure is filed, the Civil Manual Chapter XIX para 337 requires that it
should be registered as Miscellaneous Judicial Case i.e. a case where a
Judicial Enquiry is contemplated. The learned Civil Judge should have,
therefore, directed the application to be registered as Miscellaneous
Judicial Case.
8. The section thus says that the court should be of opinion that an
enquiry should be held. Even for forming an opinion, there should be some
evidence and not mere surmises. If there is a prima facie evidence, the
court must enter into an enquiry and record a finding as to whether an
offence referred to in Section 195 of Code of Criminal Procedure is
committed.
Suppressing Material facts & Filing of successive petition amounts to abuse
of Court Process After investigation, chargesheet has been filed against the
petitioner and others under Sections 177, 181, 182 and 195 IPC. The
petitioner has suppressed the material fact and has not disclosed
anywhere in this petition that he had approached the High Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the chargesheet, which stood rejected
vide order dated 3.2.2010 and the said order attained finality as has not
been challenged any further. Thus, he is guilty of suppressing the material
fact which makes the petition liable to be dismissed only on this sole
ground. We are of the view that it was necessary for the petitioner to
disclose such a relevant fact. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while
deciding the application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. has made reference to
the said order of the High Court dated 3.2.2010. We had been deprived of
the opportunity to scrutinise the chargesheet as well as the order of the
High Court dated 3.2.2010 and to ascertain as to whether the grievance of
the petitioner in respect of the application of the provisions of Section 195
read with Section 340 Cr.P.C. had been raised in that petition and as to
whether even if such plea has not been taken whether the petitioner can
be permitted to raise such plea subsequently. The petitioner is guilty of
suppressing the material fact. Admittedly, filing of successive petition
before the court amounts to abuse of the process of the court. Thus, we
are not inclined to examine the issue any further.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.335 OF 2012
Ram Dhan Versus State of U.P. & Anr
JUDGMENT
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
1. This petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated
14.11.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal
Revision No.4259 of 2011 by which the High Court has rejected the said
revision petition against the impugned order dated 3.9.2011 passed by the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bagpat, rejecting the application under Section
239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called `Cr.P.C.’).
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this petition are that present
petitioner Ram Dhan lodged an FIR dated 4.6.1995 alleging that his son
Dinesh had disappeared and, subsequently, filed a complaint against Balraj
alias Billu and others (respondents) under Section 364 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter called IPC). The investigating agency concluded the
investigation and filed a chargesheet on the basis of which trial
commenced against the respondents Balraj etc. and the trial Court vide
judgment and order dated 11.5.2005 convicted the respondent No.2 Balraj
and others for the offences punishable under Section 364 read with
Section 149 IPC and awarded sentence of 9 years rigorous imprisonment
and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/-.
3. Being aggrieved, Balraj, respondent No.2 and others preferred an appeal
before the High Court of Allahabad which was admitted and the
respondent No.2 and other convicts were granted bail by the High Court.
The petitioner’s son for whose kidnapping Balraj, respondent No.2 and
others had been convicted, came back home and disclosed to the public as
well as to the police that he had not been kidnapped rather had voluntarily
gone to Punjab, where he worked for several years. Balraj, respondent
No.2 realised that he had been wrongly enroped and convicted in the
offence by the petitioner. Thus, he filed an FIR on 29.8.2009 under Sections
177, 181, 182, 195 and 420 IPC. After investigating the case, chargesheet
was filed against the petitioner and others under Sections 177, 181, 182
and 195 IPC on 23.11.2009.
4. The petitioner filed an application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. before the
Chief Judicial Magistrate contending that the FIR at the behest of the
respondent No.2, Balraj was not maintainable in view of the provisions of
Section 195 read with Section 340 Cr.P.C. The Chief Judicial Magistrate
rejected the said application vide order dated 3.9.2011. The petitioner
challenged the said order dated 3.9.2011 by filing a criminal revision
before the High Court which has been dismissed vide impugned order
dated 14.11.2011. Hence, this petition.
5. Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
has vehemently contended that the prosecution of the petitioner is illegal
and liable to be quashed in view of the provisions of Sections 195 and 340
Cr.P.C, for the reason that as the offence has been committed in the court,
such a drastic action can be taken against the petitioner only on a
complaint lodged by the court and not by the convict/respondent No.2.
6. We find no merit in the petition. After investigation, chargesheet has
been filed against the petitioner and others under Sections 177, 181, 182
and 195 IPC. The petitioner has suppressed the material fact and has not
disclosed anywhere in this petition that he had approached the High Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the chargesheet, which stood
rejected vide order dated 3.2.2010 and the said order attained finality as
has not been challenged any further. Thus, he is guilty of suppressing the
material fact which makes the petition liable to be dismissed only on this
sole ground. We are of the view that it was necessary for the petitioner to
disclose such a relevant fact. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while
deciding the application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. has made reference to
the said order of the High Court dated 3.2.2010. We had been deprived of
the opportunity to scrutinise the chargesheet as well as the order of the
High Court dated 3.2.2010 and to ascertain as to whether the grievance of
the petitioner in respect of the application of the provisions of Section 195
read with Section 340 Cr.P.C. had been raised in that petition and as to
whether even if such plea has not been taken whether the petitioner can
be permitted to raise such plea subsequently.
7. In such a fact-situation, the courts below may be right to the extent that
question of discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. was totally unwarranted in
view of the order passed by the High Court on 3.2.2010. For the reasons
best known to the petitioner, neither the copy of the chargesheet nor of
the order dated 3.2.2010 passed by the High Court have been placed on
record.
8. Be that as it may, the chargesheet has been filed under Sections 177,
181, 182, 195 and 420 IPC. Section 177 IPC deals with an offence furnishing
false information. Section 181 IPC deals with false statement on oath.
Section 182 IPC deals with false information with intent to cause public
servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person. Section
195 IPC deals with giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to
procure conviction of offence punishable with imprisonment for life or
imprisonment.
9. At least the provisions of Sections 177 and 182 deal with the cases
totally outside the court. Therefore, the question of attracting the
provisions of Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C. are not attracted. Section 195
IPC makes fabrication of false evidence punishable. It is not necessary that
fabrication of false evidence takes place only inside the court as it can also
be fabricated outside the court though has been used in the court.
Therefore, it may also not attract the provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C.
(See: Sachida Nand Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Anr. , (1998) 2 SCC
493).
10. Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, has placed a very heavy reliance on the judgment of this Court
in Abdul Rehman & Ors. v. K.M. Anees-ul-Haq, JT (2011) 13 SC 271.
However, it is evident from the judgment relied upon that the judgment in
Sachida Nand Singh (Supra), which is of a larger Bench, has not been
brought to the notice of the court.
(See also: Balasubramaniam v. State & Anr., (2002) 7 SCC 649).
The petitioner is guilty of suppressing the material fact. Admittedly, filing
of successive petition before the court amounts to abuse of the process of
the court. Thus, we are not inclined to examine the issue any further.
Considering the composite nature of the offences, we do not see any
cogent reason to interfere with the impugned order. The petition lacks
merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. ………………………………….J. (DR. B.S.
CHAUHAN) …….……………………………J.
Indeed a very painstaking effort by Mr. Amit to give the author some
information as what he can do about it. It is very clear that she has not
come to court with clean hands and has lied before the court on oath,
which can be viewed very seriously more so eligible for a perjury case, this
case can be taken up simultaneously as a separate case, this may not be
combined with the main case
Thanks Mr.
Yes it is a good judgment by Apex court. Infact I have listed this judgment
as reference for my 340 petition.
Can i file perjury.
Currently in US with work visa. Wife left me for India to pursue her career
after making all kinds of drama. Initially I tried for her employment, but
she did not succeed, and thereafter started to make false allegations via
mail that I had tortured her physically and mentally. As expected, 6
months after leaving she filed CrPC 125 and Interim Maintenance case,
claiming distressed with no source of income. Just 15 days later, she joined
work and getting handsome salary. She is not aware yet that I have proof
of her employment. Judge asked to reply CrPC 125 and we did so in Dec,
without mentioning about her employment. But OP's lawyer was adamant
for interim, thus judge gave another date to file my reply to her interim
petition. Now, should I mention, that she came to court with unclean
hands, since since April till today, in none of the hearings she disclosed her
prior or current employment details. But again, technically, she was
unemployed, when she filed the case, and miraculously started job just 15
days later (maybe got her joining letter, and filed case immediately).
Anyway, so can I file perjury that party has not disclosed facts to court
and/or come with unclean hands. --OR-- should I simply mention about her
employment in the interim reply and hope her interim is quashed (NEED SC
JUDGEMENTS REGARDING THE SAME..IF ANY) --OR-- should I just hide her
employment in my reply and somehow coax her to take oath hoping she
lies and then tell about her employment while filing perjury. Can experts
guide me, which would be a better way to nail the lie and the liar ?
Technically the case was filed when she was not earning..so you cannot
file perjury...can say that she got the job in a weeks time..it is possible..we
know that...employers generally ask to join as early as possible after
appointment letter is given. As a good boy....You file an application u.s 127
CrPC praying for alteration of the order..(Read CrPC 127) or If you want to
see some fun and dance in the new year...you can keep quite and let her
lier under oath... For your kind perusal..please find the judgement
below..it will be of great help to you incase she lies.. In the case of Dalip
Singh Vs. State of UP and Ors. Civil appeal no. 5239 of 2002 Hon’ble SC
court has observed in para no. 1 that ………….. a litigant who attempts to
pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice
with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final….”. in para
4 the Hon’ble SC further observed that ……..’a petitioner who approaches
this court for such relief must come with frank and full disclosure of facts,
if he fails to do so and suppresses material facts, his application is liable to
be dismissed……..”. in para 9 the Hon’ble Supreme court further observed
that ……..”the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean
hands and put forward all the facts before the court without concealing or
suppressing anything and seek and appropriate relief, if there is no candid
disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of
misleading the court this petition may be dismissed at the threshold
without considering the merit of the claim" As per me, let he come and lie
under oath...and then you file an petition u.s 127 CrPC..praying for
alteration. revocation of the order..and please refer to this judgement in
your application...your job will be done.. and more..please keep all her
emails that she sent you..AND YOUR REPLIES TO HER EMAILS...they may be
required..or use it as and when requrired.
Thanks for the reply Gautam.. But, isin't assuming that she definitely
would lie under oath is again a wishful thinking...also, once she gets the
interim order in her favor, seldom judges like to change or alter, provided
the other party doesn't plays the killing time game. So, maybe perjury
should be filed before the damage has started, or if one is already in deep
sh*t. Here, maybe just bringing the truth infront of the judge would
suffice, adding that she tried to hide the facts for last 10 months, although
she has visited the court herself once, but not in witness box. Your
valuable comments are required for others as well.
CrPC 127 is applicable when the judge has already passed an order...if the
judge has not passed any order..then in your replies..you can mention that
she is earning as on date and does not deserve maintenance...support it
with judgements...
But technically, she filed for maintenance when she didn't started her job,
so how can we term that she came with unclean hands ? Of course, she
still maintains that she has no source of income, since she has made no
such disclosure and kept court in dark, since she started working and
continues 10 months back. Can this be a point for terming her coming to
court unclean ?? Please share ANY SC judgement where working lady who
left her matrimonial home on her own will is not entitled for maintenance.
I found a few Delhi HC order, but Calcutta HC or SC would help me more.
No you can just file for amendment in the order.
Can I file a case u/s 125crpc, 191&193
Recently family court issued me an order to pay my wife a maintenance of
10000. During the trail I couldn't submit any reasonable evidence to prove
that she was employed. So I decided to appeal in the high court and a
petition has been made in this regard( this petition has been numbered
but yet to be admitted) Now I have come across a reasonable evidence of
her employment. So I have two questions
1) can I now file a new petition in the family court to take cognizance of
the fresh evidence u/s 125 crpc
2) can I file a case of perjury under sections 191 and 193
That is even while there is an appeal pending in the high court
you can file an application under section 127 CrPC for alteration in
maintenance allowance in the changed circumstances before the court
which fixed maintenance
For filing this petition should i withdraw my appeal at High court?? Help
needed to file perjury in acjm court
my wife files 498a/307/323 and dp 3/4 vide crpc 156(3) in acjm court and
then on courts direction police filed FIR on may 2011 and she also filed crpc
125 on appril 2011. charged framed on appril 2012 498a/323 and dp 3/4.
total 9 witness is there 3 witness over. My wife in her deposition in the
acjm court which continue up to 4 date gives so many self contradictory
statement . Even she mislead and misguide the same court in crpc 125 case
.
1.one day she told that after the incident on 19/12/10 (of beating
consuming poison forcibly) she was brought to XXX primary hospital there
after she returned back to her in-laws house and at that time there is no
injury marks in her body and she had a headache but in another day she
told from XXX1 hospital she was immediately referred to YYY hospital and
she showed the injury marks to the XXX1 hospital's doctor. I ALSO FILED
RTI TO XXX1 HOSPITAL THEY REPLIED THAT ON 19/12/10 OR 20/12/10 NO
PATIENT ADMITTED IN THIS HOSPITAL IN THIS NAME.
2. One day she told that she became unconscious after the incident thats
why she was unable to told the incident to the attending doctors of XXX1
and XXX2 hospital and also told the neighbours brought her to XXX2
hospital. THEN I FILED RTI TO XXX2 HOSPITAL THEY REPLIED THAT THE
PATIENTS NOT AT ALL UNCONSCIOUS AND HAD A HEADACHE AND MY
FATHER ADMITTED HER ON 20/12/2010 AT 08.51 AM I filed perjury in
reference of my crpc 125 case on december 2014 where she also give so
many false statement and I have the documentary evidence and I also
attached these documents with application. But the judge is misbehaving
with me she(LADY JUDGE) just keep the application in her bag and telling it
is her own administrative matter she will take the action as per her wish
and she will not tell the same to anyone. She is neither accepting nor
rejecting the application. The fact is that she cannot reject the application
as I have meterial evidence which she cannot deny. Thats why she is
harrassing us. please guide me what should I do now? Can I approach high
court by bypassing the acjm court? I want to file another perjury
application with reference my 498a case. In which stage I should file the
perjury application, in between trial or after final judgement?
help needed
Hi Sec-9 HMA (in other court), Sec-12 DVA & Sec.125 Crpc cases are
pending in same court between me & my wife. My wife in her Rejoinder in
125 CrPC has mentioned three times that "Punjab & Haryana High Court at
Chandigarh" has passed orders that My Sec-9 case has been transferred to
this court (where her 125 CrpC & Sec-12 DV) are pending. This is totally
false & wrong statement. Also want to know filing Rejoinders in court &
accepted by court; are these constitute a valid legal document under oath
and is suitable enough for prosecution under perjury. Worth mention to
point out that 2weeks back her advocate filed POA in the other court
where the Sec-9 court case got transferred so my wife was fully aware
about orders of the High Court. I want to file a perjury case against her for
using the name of "Punjab & Haryana High Court" for false orders. I want
to to know in what court this case is need be filed. (means where crpc 125
& 12 dva pending) or I can file in a court in my city where I live for my
easiness. Please guide, is it suitable ground for filing perjury?
Execution u/s 125(3) or 128
Under which section, 125 maintenance execution is to be filed ? 125(3) or
128 Pls guide What is difference between 125(3) and 128 One imp thing I
would request to guide me One year is calculated from maintenance due
or from order passed? What if order passed after 7 months ? Order was
passed in oct 2014 Maintenance due from april 2014 I want to file
executtion u/s 125(3) Pls guide I have gathered info from internet but still
this sections not clear
Please see the attached book for complete knowledge on CrPC (Code of
Criminal Procedure).
Execution is 125 CrPC subsection 3 [125(3)]. 128 CrPC is about free order
copy service to whom the allowance is to be paid. Please read each of my
posts carefully in the following links for sample petitions and other
necessary clues.
But someone today suggested to file.execution u/s 51 CPC Pls guide what
should I do.
Maintenance executions are filed u/s 125(3) only.
 Adv wants to file executution of interrim maintenance of interrim 125,
under section 51 cpc, that too thru cjm, shouldnt it b filed in same court
u/s 125(3) Pls guide Respondent has no property for attachment, how
which section should it b filed
But arrest warrants, can those be issued in 125(3)crpc or 128crpc or cpc51.
You have to file execution petition u/s. 125 (3) of cr.p.c. before the same
magistrate who passed maintenance orders. You can claim maintenance as
specified in the order, i.e., if the judge passed maintenance from the date
of maintenance application, from that date or if the order says that wife is
entitled from the date of order, from that date. Once you file execution
petition, the husband appears and if he does not pay, the court will attach
his property and if he does not have property, then issue warrant of
attachement of his salary, if he is a working person and if that also not
possible, as a last resort issue warrant of arrest. All these things happen
under section 125 (3) only. Execution proceedings are simple and once you
see how the advocate is filing this, you can learn it and next time onwards,
you can yourself file execution petitions at regular intervals to get your
maintenance without advocate's assitance.
Why speedy trial and perjury ?
Dear Friends, I have seen people have lot of questions/confusion on
Speedy Trial, Perjury and Quashing. Let me try to enlighten it. “History will
have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition
was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of
the good people.” . . . Martin Luther King, Jr. Corruption in India is not
because of bad people are more, because of right people do not take right
action at right time. According to data available with the apex court, the
number of pending cases with the Supreme Court is 64,919 as on
December 1, 2014. The data available for the 24 High Courts and lower
courts up to the year ending 2013 showed pendency of 44.5 lakhs and
whopping 2.6 crores, respectively. Of the over 44 lakh cases pending in the
24 high courts of the country, 34,32,493 were civil and 10,23,739 criminal.
The maximum pendency of civil and criminal cases together was in
Allahabad High Court with 10,43,398 cases while the minimum was in
Sikkim with 120 cases pending at the end of 2013. The Delhi High Court
had a total of 64,652 cases pending before it. More than 32 million pending
cases in high courts and subordinate courts across the country. From
aforesaid data we can easily realize that Indian Judiciary System which is
driven by corrupted Advocates and Judges never wishes to arrive at the
truth, punish the guilty and protect the innocents. These Advocates and
Judges have created a wrongful extortion racket to harass innocents and
squeeze their money. Justice delayed means Justice Denied Criminals
always try to delay court process to avoid conviction. Those who have
registered false cases for malicious intention also try to delay court process
to prolongate harassment. From the aforesaid data we can realize that
Indian Judiciary System which is driven by corrupted Advocates and Judges
supports both a & b. It is our duty to stop. It is said that – “The best
defense is a good offense”. Perjury and Speedy Trial is the ultimate
weapon. There are no provisions in law through which engagement of
advocate is compulsory. Person may file or defend any case personally
without engaging advocate. You may plead case of your relative in court
after securing power of attorney from your relative subject to permission
of council of Section 32 of Advocate Act. Never file Quashing unless you
have Anticipatory Bail or Regular Bail. I never advised quashing alone.
Quashing is not easy. I always advise quashing with speedy trial, that is,
there should be a 2nd prayer in the same quashing petition for speedy trial
to dispose of the matter within certain period (For 498A and others it
should be 6 months; Please refer Sec. 21-B of Hindu Marriage Act / 40-B Of
Special Marriage Act whichever is applicable) as facing lengthy trial
deprives personal liberty as per Article 21 of Indian Constitution.
FAQ - on Perjury & Speedy Trial
Why I advise Quashing with Speedy Trial? Not only Speedy Trial?
Ans: - Usually 498A cases or any false cases the false and concocted
statements are recorded in FIRs and Charge Sheets. In Quashing and
Speedy Trial process, your submissions will be recorded in the High Court
order which will be act as very good evidence during the trial. Can perjury
and defamation be filed in parallel as a courter case?
Ans: - Yes. Perjury should be filed U/S 340 CrPC read with 195 CrPC.
Defamation should be filed U/S 499 IPC read with 500 IPC.
When can I file Perjury?
Ans: - Perjury can be filed at any stage of a criminal or civil proceeding. It
is advisable that perjury and WS (Written Statements) should be filed
together for any civil (like divorce, RCR, Child custody, DVA-quasi-civil, 125
CrPC-quasi-criminal) and/or criminal proceedings (like 498A (WS not
required)).
Where can I file Perjury?
Ans: - Perjury should be filed in the same courts where civil / criminal
cases is going on respectively. That is for 498A, DVA, 125 CrPC, Divorce,
RCR, . . . . . , etc. distinct Perjury petitions should be filed in the same
courts respectively.
How many times can I file Perjury?
Ans: - This depends how many times your opponent have filed false
petitions. If the number of false petitions are "n" then you can file n-
number of times in the same courts respectively.
Why all Advocates reluctant to file Perjury and Defamation?
 Ans: - Because Indian Judiciary System which is driven by corrupted
Advocates and Judges never wishes to arrive at the truth, punish the guilty
and protect the innocents.
Can I file Perjury and Defamation Party-in-persion?
Ans: - Yes. Can my relatives/friends file my cases party-in-persion? Ans: -
Yes, by securing power of attorney as power of council as per sec 32 of
Advocate Act.
If Judges willfully delay my Perjury Petition(s), what to do?
Ans: - First pray to that judge to write in the order-sheet the reason why
he/she does not wish to register the case. Refer the citations in my links in
favor of your argument. (By giving a put-up (Sec. 151 of Code of Civil
Procedure (CPC)).)) Complaint against that judge to the chief District judge
in written petition and pray to transfer the matter to a first track court for
expedient trial. (Sec. 24 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)). You can
approach to HC and file Criminal Writ (if a & b fails) as I have suggested in
my links.
How many of you are planning to fight your cases in-person
Dear Friends, How Many of You Are Planning to Fight Your Cases In-
Person? 498A I have posted lot of sample petitions, citations and clues on
the links bellow: -
I am interested to know that how it is helpful to you? How many of you
are planning to fight your cases in-person? Your valuable feedback will
help me to give you more accurate advice. Let us stop "Legal Terrorism".
xyz your information are valuable i am fighting my case for that i lose the
Cambridge university london's job 1 lac per month at present i have
nothing left but still i am fighting . i am assisting to my lawyer , but bull
sh*t process of indian judicialy is going slow we have to accept this even if
we apply for speedy trial lower court judges become rude but any how
now i come to end up my 498A , now notice issued to wife fourth time if
this time they are not coming then there is possiblity of issuing warrant, i
won sec 9 , l applied for execution in which i prayed attachement of
property of wife though she is hand to mouth but still i applied lower court
judge again here did his garbage in his order the judge B.K.Shirvastav
district judge damoh ek number f**ker , feminist, woman oriented] we
applied to Highcourt jabalpur now next date is on 7 july sample order is
given below learned counsel for petitioner.He is heard on the question of
admission. Issue notice against admission of this petition to the
respondent. The same be made returnable by fixing a date in the week
commencing 7.7.2014. Necessary steps with requisites of the registered
post in this regard be taken within 7 days, failing which this revision shall
stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench. Let
record of the disposed of Execution Case be requisition from the executing
Court before next hearing. Case be listed accordingly on the date which is
so mentioned in the aforesaid notice." this was the judgement on last
hearing , i am not able to predict what would be final decision on 7 july
according to decision if respondent here wife not came then order will be
passed or not if order is there then will it be exparte..... 498A date is on 17
july if they will not appear then Can i demand to issue non bailable
warrant to witness as four notices has been sent and they are not
apeearing. now my wife is in great tension as i am slowly screw her up ,
and putting various cases as deccision of one case coming there is next one
to fight / reply for her so she start getting puzzeled and harassed. but her
ego is high erected to touch the sky.. now soon after 498A divorce ,
custody of 3 yr daughter and 211, defamation both criminal and cilvil,420,
breach of trust etc all she have to face if apply all at a time then she may
get alert.. and start prepration accordingly... she applied for divorce her
one divorce application ended by note that they dont want furthur to
proceed so file send to recort room. it was file in sep09 and not imposed
on march 11 but against she filed new divorce on jan 14 not still notices
are not being served to me , actually i am playing tricks and not receving
any notice from her but i am able to delvier mine by any means for that
once i change my get up also with police man and i gave him bribe, and
notice get served, though i am on front foot but still i am loosing my time
and money instead of doing some constructive work i am involved i such
bad game.
Dear Mr. 498A fighter, Thanking you by heart for your great fight. If that
trial court is not complying the Speedy Trial Order than they are in
contempt. You should take certified copy of the all order and file Criminal
Writ(Article 227) then the rudeness of that judge will be soft. The high
court might summon to that judge also to give satisfactory answer for
delay. You can do it in-person also. Once you win then you should appear
to High Court against the state and your wife for cost about your the
damage of your life, job loose etc. Article 227 -
Every human must need basic knowledge of the law. I was facing the DV
issue that time I have no bit knowledge about it. My family members very
suffered on the issue. After discuss the lawersclulindia.com experts and
read the 498a,DVA,125Crcp related article's. Now my mind is clear I feel
very better.
Dear Bani I am planing to file perjury against her, i have discussed the
contradiction points with my lawyer and he is agree with me. Now for
speedy trial i am preparing the petition myself after completion i shall
send you. thanks for your suggestion.
Dear Members In my case police record her four family member's
statement they are her elder sister,her brother in law, her mother and her
younger brother and all of them have almost same allegation. Her mother
said that she gave me dowry more than her strength by selling her village
house. Her younger brother said that i am planning to kill his sister and
hiding her dead body during she was living with me in Delhi. Now i want to
know that should i file Cr.P.C. 91 for giving their statement in form of
affidavit to file a perjury case against them? Or should I wait til they
examined in court
Best way to fight against false 498a
Fight Against Misuse of 498A IPC.
Dear Friends, The misuse of IPC 498A is a very big problem in India. The
misuse of IPC 498A has become a business of a lot of
a) a) matrimonial dispute wives,
b) b) corrupted police offices,
c) c) corrupted lawyers and judges and
d) d) Unscrupulous people.
Though the Honorable Supreme Court of India stated that the misuse of
IPC 498A as “Legal Terrorism” but still the truth is, anyone can be the
victim at any moment. After 498A, the next item is 125 CrPC and Domestic
Violence to extort money. Please note that until we completely defeat the
opponent on 498A, we may not get any relief on 125 and DV. Conviction
rate of IPC 498A is 2% only which is rarest of rare. It is also indicate the
misuse of 498A is very much. If you have incurred in this then most of the
lawyers would like to prolongate the process or try to make mutual
settlement to extort your money. If you are paying money then you are
virtually benefiting these wrong doers to continue their business. Please
don’t do it. So friends, it is our duty to stop this wrong money extorting
business. Please Note: To file and move your own case, you need not to be
an advocate. You can file and move your own case IN-PERSON also.
To do this –
a) a) you need to study little law,
b) b) arrange sample petitions for drafting your case,
c) c) Study your case,
 d) d) Arrange evidences as per Indian Evidence Act 1872.
e) e) make rehearsal and
f) f) Download and arrange citations of other judgments for same type of
your case of HC and SC in support of your arguments and produce it before
the court.

Please also note that to file and move your own case in-person in the High
Court or Supreme Court is easier than Lower Courts. In HC and SC cases
gets disposed of within very short time, within 2/3 hearings and 2/3
weeks. Please arrange proper arguments with proper citations and
evidences, prima-facies with proper rehearsal before appear in HC or SC.
Please be brave and increase you will-power which will make you winner.
If you know that you are innocent then nobody can defeat you. There are
two situations: -
1) Before getting 498A: - Before you get the 498A you might predict that it
might happen to you any time. You may get threats from your dispute wife
and in-laws. If you get this then first of all, make your mind set like this -
that you may spend one day in jail. Please don’t worry for this. But still you
can avoid this. Your first job is to file NC (Non Cognizable) on both your and
her local police station against her (your wife). Also make NC by your
parents, brothers, sisters and senior most members of your family against
your wife. Arrange Anticipatory Bail U/S 438 CrPC (Criminal Misslanious
Case) for all of you family members in the Session Court or High Court.
Please note that you can file anticipatory bail both BEFORE and AFTER
registering the FIR of 498A. If you have AB then police can’t arrest you.
2) After getting 498A: - After getting 498A and once you are in regular bail,
your first job is to dispose of the false FIR of 498A IPC as early as possible.
Please note that since it the business of some corrupted lawyer also, they
will always try to make it delay and try to make you understand that you
don’t have any option other than to make mutual divorce by giving lot of
money. Please don’t listen to them.
a) Please don’t file divorce of go for any mutual settlement until your
498A gets disposed of. Your advocate and others may try to make afraid
you, but you must leave your fear and be brave.
b) Please go to Criminal CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION of High
Court and file Speedy Trial U/S 483 CrPC read with Article 227 of Indian
Constitution by preying that to direct the Learned JM to dispose of the
498A case within 6 months from the communication of the order. It is
similar to Writ Petition. Please note that speedy trial is your right and it is
mandatory to file else 498A will go for life long. Please make STATE as
opposite party
c) Make petition U/S 205 CrPC for exemption from personal appearance
by showing your job condition in the same court where the 498A is going
on. You will make your professional appearance through your lawyer. d)
IPC 498A is as follows: - 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of
the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be
pun-ished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years
and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the purpose of this
section, “cruelty” means—
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the
woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or
health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to
coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for
any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any
person related to her to meet such demand. So, the definition of cruelty
U/S 498A is quite clear. Clause
 A) Cruelty, such a nature, which drive a wife to commit suicide or to cause
grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. (Need Medical Report for this
to prove). Clause
B) Harassment for unlawful demand (Dowry). So, any other cruelty which
does not falls under said Clause A & B (e.g. slapping, abusing or having
extra marital affairs etc.) cannot be chargeable U/S 498A.
i) Please go through the complain and find out that the prima-facies
indicates what type of cruelty? Whether it falls under aforesaid clauses or
not. If not, please go to CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION of High Court
and file Quashing with Speedy Tiral petition U/S 401 CrPC read with 482
CrPC and 483 CrPC and Article 227 of Indian Constitution and prey for
quashing. If the judge still don’t grant quashing then prey for speedy trial.
Please make STATE and YOUR WIFE as opposite party. Prey for call for the
record also from the lower court for better judgement.
ii) If you find that you have enough evidences to prove that 498A is false
then go to CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION of High Court and file
Criminal Writ Under Article 227 of Indian Constitution, Indian Evidence Act
1872, Dowry Prohibition Act, CrPC 482, CrPC 483 and CrPC 311 and prey for
Quashing, to declare that the FIR is false, to direct the Learned JM to take
appropriate action against de facto complainant (Your Wife) in accidence
with law. Please make STATE and YOUR WIFE as opposite party. Prey for
call for the record also from the lower court for better judgement.
iii) If you have noticed that the investigation happen in such a way that
the police is biased and did not follow the Dowry Prohibition Act properly
and violated you fundamental rights as per Article 14, 15, 19 and 21 then
got to CONSTITUTION JURISDICTION of High Court and file Civil Writ
Petition under Article 226 read with Article 14, 15, 19 and 21 of Indian
Constitution, Indian Evidence Act 1872, Dowry Prohibition Act, CrPC 482
and prey for quashing and to declare that the FIR is false and cost. Please
make STATE and YOUR WIFE as opposite party. Prey for call for the record
also from the lower court for better judgement. Please file these cases IN-
PERSON. To file these cases you need certified copy of: -
a) a) FIR
b) b) Final Charge Sheet
c) c) Seizure List
d) d) All Orders.
e) e) A Copy of Case Diary.
Perjury: -
Perjury is a very important tool to fight against 498A, 125CrPC and DV. It
can be file at any stage at the proceeding of 498A, 125 CrPC and DV as a
counter case in the same courts where the 498A, 125CrPC and DV is going
on respectively. It should file U/S 340 CrPC read with 195 CrPC. Sometimes,
a few corrupted judges do not wish to take this case or wish to delay or
wish to take latter. If anyone face this problem then show the following
citation to that judge.
BOMBAY HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.1115/07. (Para 7 & 8) If
that judge still does not wish to take it or try to mislead you then please
take the certified copy of all orders, FIR, Charge sheet, etc and file Criminal
Writ under Article 227 of Indian Constitution, 483 CrPC, 482 CrPC, 341
CrPC(Appeal on Perjury) and Indian Evidence Act 1872 to CRIMINAL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION of the High Court with the said citation. Another
good citation of Perjury is: - CRA No. 197 SB of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH
COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Once you are
completely out of 498A : - Then file for divorce. Make police complaint U/S
211, 182, 200, 190, and 193 of IPC against her. File both criminal and civil
defamation cases. Please be handsome, smart, good looking and look for a
good unmarried girl and start leave-in relationship until you get divorce.
Cheer! Some Other Important Citations: - 498A - Legal Terrorism Writ
Petition (civil) 141 of 2005 – Supreme Court of India. 498A - Defination of
Cruelty CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 57 of 2002 – Supreme Court of India.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 773 of 2003 – Supreme Court of India. If you need
any more information regarding the aforesaid tropic then please feel free
to post. I shall answer.
Speedy trials are not granted by HC in routine manner. Only in miniscule
cases HC has allowed speedy trial. The reason is not that the courts don't
think it is a fundamental right, the reason is courts are so burdened by
backlog. In one particular case, where the woman was bent upon
prolonging the case, the husband filed for speedy trial, which was
dismissed after 2 years and the lower court also the girl kept on getting
adjournments for the same reason.
I disagree with Mr. Shoee Kapoor, Speedy trial is a right of every accusted
as per Article 14 of Indian Constitution. We have lot of citations for speedy
trials. If someone in-person appears in HC and preys for speedy trial by
showing these citations and fundamental rights of Article 14, he will
deffinitly get it. If he goes with some lowyers who is dishonest he will
never get it. Because the motive of most of the lawyers to prolongate any
case, hence they do not like SPEEDY TRIAL.
I agree with sathyaprakash that for speedy trial we should go without a
lawyer as PIP party in person proves that he is in dire need of invoking thjis
constituional right. So if you need Sppedy Trial, then at least I WOULD
SUGGEST that you should go for PIP.
Fight against misuse of 498a ipc.
Dear Friends, The misuse of IPC 498A is a very big problem in India. The
misuse of IPC 498A has become a business of a lot of
a) a) matrimonial dispute wives,
b) b) corrupted police offices,
c) c) corrupted lawyers and judges and
 d) d) Unscrupulous people.
Though the Honorable Supreme Court of India stated that the misuse of
IPC 498A as “Legal Terrorism” but still the truth is, anyone can be the
victim at any moment. After 498A, the next item is 125 CrPC and Domestic
Violence to extort money. Please note that until we completely defeat the
opponent on 498A, we may not get any relief on 125 and DV. Conviction
rate of IPC 498A is 2% only which is rarest of rare. It is also indicate the
misuse of 498A is very much. If you have incurred in this then most of the
lawyers would like to prolongate the process or try to make mutual
settlement to extort your money. If you are paying money then you are
virtually benefiting these wrong doers to continue their business. Please
don’t do it. So friends, it is our duty to stop this wrong money extorting
business. Please Note: To file and move your own case, you need not to be
an advocate. You can file and move your own case IN-PERSON also. To do
this -
a) a) you need to study little law,
b) b) arrange sample petitions for drafting your case,
c) c) Study your case,
d) d) Arrange evidences as per Indian Evidence Act 1872.
e) e) make rehearsal and
f) f) Download and arrange citations of other judgments for same type of
your case of HC and SC in support of your arguments and produce it before
the court. Please also note that to file and move your own case in-person
in the High Court or Supreme Court is easier than Lower Courts. In HC and
SC cases gets disposed of within very short time, within 2/3 hearings and
2/3 weeks. Please arrange proper arguments with proper citations and
evidences, prima-facies with proper rehearsal before appear in HC of SC.
Please be brave and increase you will-power which will make you winner.
If you know that you are innocent then nobody can defeat you. There are
two situations: -
1) Before getting 498A: - Before you get the 498A you might predict that it
might happen to you any time. You may get threats from your dispute wife
and in-laws. If you get this then first of all, make your mind set like this -
that you may spend one day in jail. Please don’t worry for this. But still you
can avoid this. Your first job is to file NC (Non Cognizable) on both your and
her local police station against her (your wife). Also make NC by your
parents, brothers, sisters and senior most members of your family against
your wife. Arrange Anticipatory Bail U/S 438 CrPC (Criminal Misslanious
Case) for all of you family members in the Session Court or High Court.
Please note that you can file anticipatory bail both BEFORE and AFTER
registering the FIR of 498A. If you have AB then police can’t arrest you.
2) After getting 498A: - After getting 498A and once you are in regular bail,
your first job is to dispose of the false FIR of 498A IPC as early as possible.
Please note that since it the business of some corrupted lawyer also, they
will always try to make it delay and try to make you understand that you
don’t have any option other than to make mutual divorce by giving lot of
money. Please don’t listen to them.
a) Please don’t file divorce of go for any mutual settlement until your
498A gets disposed of. Your advocate and others may try to make afraid
you, but you must leave your fear and be brave.
b) Please go to Criminal CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION of High
Court and file Speedy Trial U/S 483 CrPC read with Article 227 of Indian
Constitution by preying that to direct the Learned JM to dispose of the
498A case within 6 months from the communication of the order. It is
similar to Writ Petition. Please note that speedy trial is your right and it is
mandatory to file else 498A will go for life long. Please make STATE as
opposite party.
 c) Make petition U/S 205 CrPC for exemption from personal appearance
by showing your job condition in the same court where the 498A is going
on. You will make your professional appearance through your lawyer.
d) IPC 498A is as follows: - 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a
woman subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or the
relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall
be pun-ished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three
years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the purpose of this
section, “cruelty” means—
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the
woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or
health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to
coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for
any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any
person related to her to meet such demand. So, the definition of cruelty
U/S 498A is quite clear. Clause
A) Cruelty, such a nature, which drive a wife to commit suicide or to cause
grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. (Need Medical Report for this
to prove). Clause
B) Harassment for unlawful demand (Dowry). So, any other cruelty which
does not falls under said Clause A & B (e.g. slapping, abusing or having
extra marital affairs etc.) cannot be chargeable U/S 498A.
i) Please go through the complain and find out that the prima-facies
indicates what type of cruelty? Whether it falls under aforesaid clauses or
not. If not, please go to CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION of High Court
and file Quashing with Speedy Tiral petition U/S 401 CrPC read with 482
CrPC and 483 CrPC and Article 227 of Indian Constitution and prey for
quashing. If the judge still don’t grant quashing then prey for speedy trial.
Please make STATE and YOUR WIFE as opposite party. Prey for call for the
record also from the lower court for better judgement.
ii) If you find that you have enough evidences to prove that 498A is false
then go to CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION of High Court and file
Criminal Writ Under Article 227 of Indian Constitution, Indian Evidence Act
1872, Dowry Prohibition Act, CrPC 482, CrPC 483 and CrPC 311 and prey for
Quashing, to declare that the FIR is false, to direct the Learned JM to take
appropriate action against de facto complainant (Your Wife) in accordance
with law. Please make STATE and YOUR WIFE as opposite party. Prey for
call for the record also from the lower court for better judgement.
iii) If you have noticed that the investigation happen in such a way that
the police is biased and did not follow the Dowry Prohibition Act properly
and violated you fundamental rights as per Article 14, 15, 19 and 21 then
got to CONSTITUTION JURISDICTION of High Court and file Civil Writ
Petition under Article 226 read with Article 14, 15, 19 and 21 of Indian
Constitution, Indian Evidence Act 1872, Dowry Prohibition Act, CrPC 482
and prey for quashing and to declare that the FIR is false and cost. Please
make STATE and YOUR WIFE as opposite party. Prey for call for the record
also from the lower court for better judgement. Please file these cases IN-
PERSON. To file these cases you need certified copy of: -
a) a) FIR
b) b) Final Charge Sheet
c) c) Seizure List
d) d) All Orders.
e) e) A Copy of Case Diary.
Perjury: - Perjury is a very important tool to fight against 498A, 125CrPC
and DV. It can be file at any stage at the proceeding of 498A, 125 CrPC and
DV as a counter case in the same courts where the 498A, 125CrPC and DV
is going on respectively. It should file U/S 340 CrPC read with 195 CrPC.
Sometimes, a few corrupted judges do not wish to take this case or wish to
delay or wish to take latter. If anyone face this problem then show the
following citation to that judge. BOMBAY HIGH COURT CRIMINAL
APPLICATION No.1115/07. (Para 7 & 8) If that judge still does not wish to
take it or try to mislead you then please take the certified copy of all
orders, FIR, Charge sheet, etc and file Criminal Writ under Article 227 of
Indian Constitution, 483 CrPC, 482 CrPC, 341 CrPC(Appeal on Perjury) and
Indian Evidence Act 1872 to CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION of the
High Court with the said citation. Another good citation of
Perjury is: -
CRA No. 197 SB of 2010 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Once you are completely out of 498A : - Then file for divorce. Make police
complaint U/S 211, 182, 200, 190, and 193 of IPC against her. File both
criminal and civil defamation cases. Please be handsome, smart, good
looking and look for a good unmarried girl and start leave-in relationship
until you get divorce. Cheer! Some Other Important Citations: - 498A -
Legal Terrorism Writ Petition (civil) 141 of 2005 –
Supreme Court of India. 498A -
Defination of Cruelty
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 57 of 2002 –
Supreme Court of India.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 773 of 2003 – Supreme Court of India. If you need
any more information regarding the aforesaid tropic then please feel free
to post. I shall answer.
Looks good on paper but not so easy to implement. Court cases goes on
and on so no person can afford to attend dates and do job or work also.
And for all these tactics and expert advocate is needed who has to be paid.
 REMEMBER THE MURDER CASE OF LALIT MOHAN MISHRA FORMER
RAILWAY MINISTER IS GOING ON SINCE MORE THAN HALF CENTURY
DURING WHICH MOST OF THE ACCUSED HAS DIED AND HUNDREDS OF
ADVOCATES CHANGED. THERE WERE AT LEAST THOUSAND POLICE
PERSONS ON DUTY AND THOUSANDS OF GENERAL PUBLIC AS WITNESS
WHEN THERE WAS FATAL BOMB ATTACK ON HIM IN A PUBLIC MEETING.
NO END TO STORY YET.
Mr. what parallels are you trying to draw/infer from this infamous murder
case to 498 cases when the author is trying to suggest positive ways of
fighting the false 498 mayhem. I dont see parallels/rather refuse to,please
can you further elaborate.
Mr. either Mr. or Mr. should be right both cannot be. The former adocates
legal steps to counter the false 498 mayhem plaguing only in India... the
later takes repose in the delay of the judicial system for meting out correct
justice..probably suggesting a quick way to get out of this which could be
either settlement or compromise. Mr.xyz,understand it it a free forum,but
the suggestions should not follow suit albiet freelance.Also not sure if you
are the 498 afflicted.
I am asking this question on behalf of my brother. Married in 2010. Issue -
One male child with her mother (age 2 years). 498A Status - Pending in
CAW Cell.
Question -
My Brother wife filed a maintenance case 125 on 1-june-2015 stating
under oath "I am homely lady and dont have any source of income and it is
ridiculous feeling to demand money from parents for your basic needs of
yourself and KID." My brother replied in WS that she is working and have
enough income to suppport herself and KID is joint responsibility of
parents. She filed rejoiner under oath that "I got temporary job i bank on
11-June-2015". (AS she has seen my brother enquiring about her from
security guard of the bank and my brother has mentioned in WS that she is
working) My brother filled RTI and got her salary (12K per month) and Date
of joining (Jan-2015) from bank. Please advise what should be next course
of action to put Pergury on Her ( She lied twice in court 1st in her 125 and
intrim application and second time in rejoinder) Our target is to HIT her
intrim maintenance as interim maintenace is not decided by court till
today.
1. Shall we use this RTI reply to argue her intrim application and once
intrim decided then hit 340. or
2. Shall we file 91 Application to bring records from bank before even
starting the argument of intrim maintenance or
3. Shall we press 340 based on lied under oath?and then we should do
argument in intrim maintenance or
4. Shall we wait for Her Cross examination and only after that file perjury.
In Interim nothing can much be done, you will just have to pay it whatever
it is. Approach HC, SC, no use. As it is only till case is pending, ie pendency
of the case.You can summon her employer, that is the best method, asking
for bank details via court is of no use, as all will be of past and not of
present. Only employers witness will help you prove in court that she is
working. So summon employer. Perjury? That is a bigg joke. and a waste of
time. Matrimonial cases itself are a waste of time, nobody will gain
anything. and perjury to prove that she lied ? come on, court alredy knows
that she is lying, and it is only a procedural and loop hole of the law which
delays the case and make you both roam to court hall endlessly. Better to
forget all this and go for MCD and part ways as good people.
She has committed perjury.
The magistrate should register the case .... This means criminal court.
should or may? For both Civil and Criminal courts if petion is made then.
Civil Manual Chapter XIX - only Civil court manual. For criminal court just
file the perjury petition. It will be registered (If the Judge is not corrupted ).
CHAPTER XIX MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS REQUIRING JUDICIAL
INQUIRY. 337. (i) Under the head Miscellaneous Judicial Proceedings are
included all proceedings are enquiries of a judicial nature which do not
form part of the proceedings in a suit or darkhast or appeal pending before
the Court.
(ii) The expression includes :- Proceedings under section 148-A of Civil
Procedure Code, read with rules framed by the High Court under section
122 of Civil Procedure Code. Proceedings of Applications under section 39,
read with rule 22, Order XXI of Code of Civil Procedure, for transfer of a
decree to another Court for execution. Proceedings under Regulation VIII
of 1827. Proceedings under section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act ;
Proceedings of judicial nature under the Guardians and wards Act;
including under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. Proceedings
under section 340 and 345 Criminal Procedure Code. Proceedings under
Order IX rules 4, 9 and 13 Civil Procedure Code. Proceedings under Order
XXI, rule 2 to certify a payment when there is no darkhast pending;
Granishee proceedings under rules 46-A to 46-I in order XXI of Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 for attachment of debt under Rule 46
(i). Proceeding under Order XXI, rules 58, 97 and 99 Civil Procedure Code.
Proceedings on application under Order XXI, rules 89 and 90, Civil
Procedure Code, to set aside a sale; Proceedings under Order XXXIII, rule 2,
for permission to sue as an indigent person. Proceedings under Order XLI,
rules 19 and 21 for readmission of a dismissed appeal or under Order XLI,
rule 21, to re-hear an appeal decided ex-parte. Proceedings under section
24, Civil Procedure Code for transfer of suit, appeal or any proceedings etc.
Proceedings under section 144, Civil Procedure Code for restitution etc.
Proceedings under section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act; Proceedings
under the Provincial Insolvency Act; Proceedings under Indian Succession
Act, XXXIX of 1925. Proceedings under section 24 of the Bombay Money
Lenders Act; Proceeding under section 47 of the Bombay Agricultural
Debtors Relief Act; Proceedings on applications under Special Acts; And
other proceedings on application in which relief is asked against a person
not a party to suit or proceedings.
Best way to fight against false 498a Read more at:
Fight Against Misuse of 498A IPC. Dear Friends, The misuse of IPC 498A is a
very big problem in India. The misuse of IPC 498A has become a business
of a lot of
a) a) matrimonial dispute wives,
b) b) corrupted police offices,
c) c) corrupted lawyers and judges and
d) d) Unscrupulous people.
Though the Honorable Supreme Court of India stated that the misuse of
IPC 498A as “Legal Terrorism” but still the truth is, anyone can be the
victim at any moment. After 498A, the next item is 125 CrPC and Domestic
Violence to extort money. Please note that until we completely defeat the
opponent on 498A, we may not get any relief on 125 and DV. Conviction
rate of IPC 498A is 2% only which is rarest of rare. It is also indicate the
misuse of 498A is very much. If you have incurred in this then most of the
lawyers would like to prolongate the process or try to make mutual
settlement to extort your money. If you are paying money then you are
virtually benefiting these wrong doers to continue their business. Please
don’t do it. So friends, it is our duty to stop this wrong money extorting
business. Please Note: To file and move your own case, you need not to be
an advocate. You can file and move your own case IN-PERSON also. To do
this –
a) a) you need to study little law,
 b) b) arrange sample petitions for drafting your case,
c) c) Study your case,
d) d) Arrange evidences as per Indian Evidence Act 1872.
e) e) make rehearsal and
f) f) Download and arrange citations of other judgments for same type of
your case of HC and SC in support of your arguments and produce it before
the court. Please also note that to file and move your own case in-person
in the High Court or Supreme Court is easier than Lower Courts. In HC and
SC cases gets disposed of within very short time, within 2/3 hearings and
2/3 weeks. Please arrange proper arguments with proper citations and
evidences, prima-facies with proper rehearsal before appear in HC or SC.
Please be brave and increase you will-power which will make you winner.
If you know that you are innocent then nobody can defeat you.
There are two situations: -
1) Before getting 498A: - Before you get the 498A you might predict that it
might happen to you any time. You may get threats from your dispute wife
and in-laws. If you get this then first of all, make your mind set like this -
that you may spend one day in jail. Please don’t worry for this. But still you
can avoid this. Your first job is to file NC (Non Cognizable) on both your and
her local police station against her (your wife). Also make NC by your
parents, brothers, sisters and senior most members of your family against
your wife. Arrange Anticipatory Bail U/S 438 CrPC (Criminal Misslanious
Case) for all of you family members in the Session Court or High Court.
Please note that you can file anticipatory bail both BEFORE and AFTER
registering the FIR of 498A. If you have AB then police can’t arrest you.
2) After getting 498A: - After getting 498A and once you are in regular bail,
your first job is to dispose of the false FIR of 498A IPC as early as possible.
Please note that since it the business of some corrupted lawyer also, they
will always try to make it delay and try to make you understand that you
don’t have any option other than to make mutual divorce by giving lot of
money. Please don’t listen to them. a) Please don’t file divorce of go for
any mutual settlement until your 498A gets disposed of. Your advocate
and others may try to make afraid you, but you must leave your fear and
be brave. b) Please go to Criminal CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION of
High Court and file Speedy Trial U/S 483 CrPC read with Article 227 of
Indian Constitution by preying that to direct the Learned JM to dispose of
the 498A case within 6 months from the communication of the order. It is
similar to Writ Petition. Please note that speedy trial is your right and it is
mandatory to file else 498A will go for life long. Please make STATE as
opposite party
c) Make petition U/S 205 CrPC for exemption from personal appearance
by showing your job condition in the same court where the 498A is going
on. You will make your professional appearance through your lawyer.
d) IPC 498A is as follows: - 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a
woman subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or the
relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall
be pun-ished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three
years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the
woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or
health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to
coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for
any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any
person related to her to meet such demand. So, the definition of cruelty
U/S 498A is quite clear. Clause
 A) Cruelty, such a nature, which drive a wife to commit suicide or to cause
grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. (Need Medical Report for this
to prove).
Clause B) Harassment for unlawful demand (Dowry). So, any other cruelty
which does not falls under said Clause A & B (e.g. slapping, abusing or
having extra marital affairs etc.) cannot be chargeable U/S 498A.
i) Please go through the complain and find out that the prima-facies
indicates what type of cruelty? Whether it falls under aforesaid clauses or
not. If not, please go to
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION of High Court and file Quashing with
Speedy Tiral petition U/S 401 CrPC read with 482 CrPC and 483 CrPC and
Article 227 of Indian Constitution and prey for quashing. If the judge still
don’t grant quashing then prey for speedy trial. Please make STATE and
YOUR WIFE as opposite party. Prey for call for the record also from the
lower court for better judgement.
ii) If you find that you have enough evidences to prove that 498A is false
then go to CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION of High Court and file
Criminal Writ Under Article 227 of Indian Constitution, Indian Evidence Act
1872, Dowry Prohibition Act, CrPC 482, CrPC 483 and CrPC 311 and prey for
Quashing, to declare that the FIR is false, to direct the Learned JM to take
appropriate action against de facto complainant (Your Wife) in accidence
with law. Please make STATE and YOUR WIFE as opposite party. Prey for
call for the record also from the lower court for better judgement. iii) If
you have noticed that the investigation happen in such a way that the
police is biased and did not follow the Dowry Prohibition Act properly and
violated you fundamental rights as per Article 14, 15, 19 and 21 then got to
CONSTITUTION JURISDICTION of High Court and file Civil Writ Petition
under Article 226 read with Article 14, 15, 19 and 21 of Indian Constitution,
Indian Evidence Act 1872, Dowry Prohibition Act, CrPC 482 and prey for
quashing and to declare that the FIR is false and cost. Please make STATE
and YOUR WIFE as opposite party. Prey for call for the record also from the
lower court for better judgement. Please file these cases IN-PERSON. To
file these cases you need certified copy of: -
a) a) FIR
b) b) Final Charge Sheet
c) c) Seizure List
d) d) All Orders.
e) e) A Copy of Case Diary.
Perjury: -
Perjury is a very important tool to fight against 498A, 125CrPC and DV. It
can be file at any stage at the proceeding of 498A, 125 CrPC and DV as a
counter case in the same courts where the 498A, 125CrPC and DV is going
on respectively. It should file U/S 340 CrPC read with 195 CrPC. Sometimes,
a few corrupted judges do not wish to take this case or wish to delay or
wish to take latter. If anyone face this problem then show the following
citation to that judge. BOMBAY HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPLICATION
No.1115/07. (Para 7 & 8) If that judge still does not wish to take it or try to
mislead you then please take the certified copy of all orders, FIR, Charge
sheet, etc and file Criminal Writ under Article 227 of Indian Constitution,
483 CrPC, 482 CrPC, 341 CrPC(Appeal on Perjury) and Indian Evidence Act
1872 to CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION of the High Court with the
said citation. Another good citation of Perjury is: -
CRA No. 197 SB of 2010 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Once you are completely out of 498A : - Then file for divorce. Make police
complaint U/S 211, 182, 200, 190, and 193 of IPC against her. File both
criminal and civil defamation cases. Please be handsome, smart, good
looking and look for a good unmarried girl and start leave-in relationship
until you get divorce. Cheer! Some Other Important Citations: - 498A -
Legal Terrorism Writ Petition (civil) 141 of 2005 – Supreme Court of India.
498A - Defination of Cruelty CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 57 of 2002 – Supreme
Court of India. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 773 of 2003 –
Reasoning: Husband side caught her sworn Oath Affidavit lies and wanted
to press PERJURY charges. To avoid going to Jail this metro wife 'gave up
even child maint." which was awarded in S. 125 CrPC and came down to
her knees to beg for divorce. To make news item "abala nari" sensitive /
favouring the Editor comments at the bottom of the news reporting that
"wife side wanted desperately to be out of a bad marriage....." Prudent
que. here is no wife would prefer to be out of a bad marriage by giving up
"child maint" and add on top "alimony payment to husband" from her side
to come out of a bad marriage! I congratulate the husband's side Adv. to
press for penal action and paying way for out of court settlement. Now
keep thinking whichever way you want with your vague justifications for
reson to pay alimony.
I have through the news item.The husband was harrassed by in-laws while
he was staying as GHAR-JAMAI as it happens to DIL.So I also agree and
happy with this decision of Hnrble Court.. Thanks author for posting the
link.
Nice post and an encouraging development against gross violations @
Tajobs Sir - This guy being a Ghar Jamai was lucky (Situational advantage I
must say). Now lets suppose Mr. X gets axed by 498a,DV etc the moment
he files Divorce after his wife deserted him an year ago. And he has
recorded all his conversations on phone/tape where she has made her
actual comments which is 180 degree out of phase with what charges she
has levied now in her statment. So can we initiate these "Prejury sections"
against her even before the evidence or cross examination stage?
 As per Section 191 of IPC if someone being legally bound by an oath or by
an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to
make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false
and which she either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to
be true is said to give false evidence. As per Section 195 of IPC if someone
gives or fabricates false evidence intending thereby to cause ,or knowing it
to be likely that he will thereby cause, any person to be convicted of an
offence which by the law for the time being in force in India is not capital,
but punishable with imprisonment for life ,or imprisonment for a term of
seven years or upward, shall be punished as a person convicted of that
offence would be liable to be punished. So the applicant be prosecuted,
tried and penalized under section 340 of Cr. PC.
Documents to produce in court on working wife - crpc 125
My wife has put me a case u/s CrPC 125 for maintainance. She has hidden
her working information in the petition. But she is now working in IBM
bangalore. One of my friend working in IBM gave me details about her
from employee database of IBM in pdf copy -
details contains, Name, Email id, Working location, Office Address,
Reporting Manager etc.
Is this details sufficient to prove in court that she is working?
Do the following
1) You need to get the Salary slip of your wife , that will be the most
important and deciding document to decide on maintenance for your wife.
Since you have a friend in IBM you can try and get that OR
2) You can make an application to the court to summon her employer
(name her reporting authority) to produce details of her income to the
court. Note being a private company the company may not honour the
summons and you cant do much, so best get her salary slip
 3) Get a Placement Consultant to call her and offer her a fake but better
job with another IT company , if she falls to the trap, you will get an
admission from her on email about her employment details including
salary OR $)
Produce her bank statements to the court
I don't agree with Brother Fighter in point 1 and 3...Unless u get her salary
slip thru legal methods, its inadmissible. Getting a recruiter to call you and
recording the conversation is also fruitless. Point 2 I agree with. File CrPC
91 and ask the court to ask her to submit all her banking records. In the
same CrPC 91 ask the court to direct the company to submit and affidavit
about if she is working there are not and if she is, how much she is earning.
Companies WILL HAVE TO comply, else it will be contempt of court.
Remember, if they don't listen to trial/family court, appeal it in High court
and then they have to listen. Also, as a strategy, wait till your wife has
come on the stand and, under oath, made a statement that she is not
working. Once she has done this, and you file for CrPC 91, then ask the
judge take up perjury charges against her.
Submit the details of her emploment in the court immediately.There is a
Supreme Court and High Court's ruling that no maintenance should be paid
to a qualified and a well employed wife.
Tutor, You have every right to defend yourself by producing whatever
documents you can gather on wife employment. No where i have
suggested to get these docs illegally. You can produce these documents in
a proper way in consultation of a lawyer. Q Slinger, can you pls enlighten
us under which section of law will these documents not be admissible in
the court ? There could be a debate on the authenticity of the documents
but court will not stop to submit these docs. I would also like you to read
the case of one of our member "Kapil Shah" who has produced all docs to
prove wife's earning but still the Hon'ble court has overlooked and granted
maintenance to the wife, and husband is now running pillar to post
figuring out why this has happened n what should be done. Also you need
to be quick than strategizing at this point as Hon'ble courts will not wait
for you to complete your strategy and by the time you realize that the
maintenance order would have got released.
It might help, but the employer need to be summoned to the court, by
issuance of summons in person in court hall. Only then it can be of help,
printouts like that I can also give you 100, but that wont stand in court of
law, it needs seal signature as well as physical evidence in witness box
inside court hall, only if that can be done, her working status will be
proved, but as it is IBM and it is a private company, it does not come under
puview of government, she can as well manage with her manager to not
provide details regarding her and keep her account details citing that you
are troubling her and as this is a woman oriented world, and all wag their
tongues for women, this is of no use to pursue, but you may still pursue it
only with the hope that some sane judge will favor your evidence and
cancel the alimony granted and based upon suich judgement and
depositoin in court, you can file later perjury case on her that she lied
under oath in the court of law, punishment for lying in court of law under
oath is 7 years imprisonment and 50000 fine. All the best in pursuing this
matter
Judge not pursuing my perjury complaint (u/s 340)
i filed a perjury complaint u/s 340 in the DV case (after the interim got
dismissed on the basis of concealment of fact etc) as my wife lied,
concealed facts and stated contradictory facts. have been requesting the
judge for the last several dates to pursue it further but she said that she
will look into it later and will first decide the DV case, and that she will first
make my wife give her statement in the DV case as she has to lead her
evidence.. an appeal that my wife filed against the interim order also got
dismissed. what to do folks ? can i file an application requesting the judge
to decide perury first
Always remember judges don't want to pursue in perjury case. File
application to court to decide perjury first. And attach these two
judgments Allahabad HC- Court should dispose of the application U/s 340
CrPC first October 13, 2012 498agladiator
Leave a comment
Go to comments
Court should dispose of the application U/s 340 CrPC first Court : High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad Brief
if an application is moved in the pending case bringing to the notice of the
court that any false evidence knowing well has been filed or fabricated in
such proceedings, the court should dispose of the said application first
before proceeding any further or before recording of further evidence.
Court No.29 High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench,
Lucknow Writ Petition No. (56) of 2002 Syed Nazim HusainVs.The
Additional Principal Judge Family Court & another Hon’ble A. Mateen, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. Since a
very trivial point is involved I propose to dispose of the petition at this
initial stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner has approached this Court
with the prayer that the order dated 24.10.2002 be quashed. From the
order dated 24.10.2002 it comes out that the learned Additional Principal
Judge, Family Court on the application, moved by the petitioner under
Section 340, 344 Cr.P.C. instead of disposing of the same had postponed
disposal of the said application and ordered that said application may be
disposed of after evidence is recorded in case No. 566/89. In my view, if an
application is moved in the pending case bringing to the notice of the court
that any false evidence knowing well has been filed or fabricated in such
proceedings, the court should dispose of the said application first before
proceeding any further or before recording of further evidence. In the
circumstances, I dispose of the present application and direct the
Additional Principal Judge Family Court to dispose of the application so
moved by the petitioner under Section 340, 344 Cr.P.C. before proceeding
further in accordance with law. With the above observations the petition is
disposed of finally. 9.1.2003 sd- A.Mateen CrPC 340 procedure cannot be
bypassed by trial court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA No.
197 SB of 2010 (O&M)
Date of decision: 25-1-2010
Sunny Bhumbla ………Appellant Vs Shashi ………Respondent CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE LAL
Present: Shri K.S.Boparai, Advocate, for the appellant.
HARBANS , J. This appeal is directed against the order dated 5.12.2008
Annexure P-1 passed by the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Saheed Bhagat Singh Nagar vide which he allowed the petition moved
under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for restitution of conjugal rights
leaving the parties to bear their own costs and rejected the application
moved under Section 195/340 Cr.P.C. I have heard the learned counsel for
the appellant, besides perusing the record with due care and
circumspection. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted with
great eloquence that after the respondent admitted in her cross-
examination about her employment, salary and inheritance of the landed
property, she again placed on record another affidavit dated 27.8.2008
solemnly affirming therein that she had inadvertently not mentioned
about the source of income as well as employment in the earlier affidavit
dated 14.8.2008. Thereafter the appellant moved an application under
Section 195 of Cr.P.C. for initiating proceedings against the respondent for
submitting a false affidavit CRA No. 197 SB of 2010 (O&M) 2 before the
learned trial Court, in order to get more maintenance from the appellant.
The learned trial Court had assured the appellant that his said application
shall be decided alongwith the main case. While deciding the main
petition, in paragraph No. 13 of the judgment it has been observed that “in
support of her claim for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, the respondent/applicant had made certain
assertions, which were found to be totally false and the same had
apparently been done by her in a deliberate manner. Consequently even
an application for initiating suitable proceedings against her on account of
her having submitted a false affidavit was also filed by the petitioner on
3.9.2008. Thereafter, the respondent did not press her claim for interim
maintenance, but the same did not absolve her of the liability of the
aforesaid lapse. This court, however, does not wish to initiate any such
proceedings against the respondent with the hope that sooner or later, the
parties may be in a position to resolve their dispute or else this young
couple may adopt such other means so that they can part their ways in a
peaceful manner and therefore, with a view to avoid undue complication
of the matrimonial dispute, no action on account of submitting of the
above false affidavit etc. is being initiated against the respondent.” It is
further argued that the learned trial Court has overlooked the fact that the
respondent has used the false affidavit in the judicial proceedings.
Therefore, all the ingredients of the offences of cheating, forging and
perjury etc. are made out and consequently, the order passed by the
learned trial Court in not initiating the proceedings under Section 195 read
with Section 340 Cr.P.C. is illegal. I have given a deep and thoughtful
consideration to these submissions. A careful perusal of the observations
rendered by the learned trial Court in paragraph No. 13 of the impugned
judgment would reveal that there is not even a shred of reference to the
application moved under Section 195 read with Section 340 Cr.P.C. This
apart, no specific reasons have been apportioned for not initiating the
action on the basis of the alleged affidavit. The said application having
been moved under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure was
required to be disposed of separately. It was not desirable on the part of
the learned trial Court to decide the said application in a slip shod manner
by making mere passing reference to the alleged affidavit. In the
application moved under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. if the Court deems fit,
the inquiry has to be held whereas in the present one, the impugned order
is absolutely silent as to whether or not inquiry was held. There is specific
procedure which is to be followed while disposing of an application moved
under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 340 of the
Criminal Procedure Code reads as under:- “340.Procedure in cases
mentioned in Sec.195–
(1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise any
Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an
inquiry should be made into any offence referred to to in cl
(b) of sub-section
(1) of Section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation
to to a proceeding in that Court, or as the case may be, in respect of of a
document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, CRA
No. 197 SB of 2010 (O&M) 4 such Court may, after such preliminary
inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary.
(a) record a finding to that effect.
(b) make a complaint thereof in writing
(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction.
(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such
Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non- bailable and the Court thinks it
necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and
 (e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such
Magistrate.
(2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section
(1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court has neither
made a complaint under sub-section
(1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of
such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is
subordinate within the meaning of sub-section
(4) of Sec.195.
(3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed
(a) where the Court making complaint is a High Court, by such officer of
the Court as the Court may appoint.
(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court, and (4) In this
section, “Court” has the same meaning as in CRA No. 197 SB of 2010
(O&M) 5 Sec.195.” A glance through the impugned order would reveal that
the learned trial Court has given a go by to the provisions of Section 340
Cr.P.C. The approach adopted by the learned trial Court is unwholesome
and is depreciable. The impugned order is absolutely silent as to whether
the application has been dismissed or allowed, if so for which reasons. In
consequence of the preceding discussion the trial Court is directed to
decide the application under discussion in accordance with law. This
appeal stands disposed of accordingly. (HARBANS LAL) JUDGE January 25,
2010
Filing perjury / defamation case
I got married in December 2012. We stayed together for 2 years. Since
november 2014 she left to her parents place. She filed section 125 claiming
maintenance. She made all false allegations in the case. We went for out of
court settlement to save the marriage. But my wife threatened that she
will commit suicide if I don't divorce her. Hence I agreed for MCD. she has
withdrawn the section 125 case. I have filed RCR case but I haven't
withdrawn the case yet. Since she has made all false allegations like she
was mentally and physically tortured, she was under house arrest for 2
years can I file perjury case against her stating that she has made a false
case against me. In MCD, she did not claim for any alimony so I can prove
the allegations made in section 125 case are false. Section 125 case was
filed in Gujarat. Should I approach the same court and file the perjury
case? Can I also file defamation case against her family and claim money.
Please provide the suggestions ASAP.
u can neither file perjury case nor defamation case as both cases are not
made out.
You said the 125 case in whicch she made false allegations has been
withdrawn so dont complicate.get mcd within a year and proceed with a
new life
Do nolt implicate yourself in doing so. If she is not happy with you nor
yourself, go for MCD and relieve yourself start fresh life. Quality of life is
significant rather than fighting and wasting time.
You do not have grounds for perjury case against her. If she is not willing
to live with your anymore, better go for MCD and avail the chance.
DEAR PLEASE PROVIDE ME THE JUDGMENT OF THE DEFAMATION AS TO
BE FILED IN CASE OF 499 IPC FOR AGAINST FALSE 498a CASE IN WHICH GET
ACQUITTAL TO BE SUED ON WOMAN WHO FILE FALSE FIR AGAINST
PERSON SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT BOMBAY HIGH COURT JUDGMENT
PLEASE AS I AM UNABLE TO FIND THEM PLEASE HELP IN BY PROVIDING
THOSE JUDMENT COPY IN PDF PLEASE LLOKING FORWARD FOR YOUR KIND
COOPERATION, HELP HOPE AND GUIDANCE
HI ALL, My current Interim maintenance application is about to start. I am
aworking profession earning around 50000/- P.M
 My wife is a BHMS DOctor + Phycologist + Selling health & Beauty
products she claims that she earns Rs 500/- P.M and has submitted 3 years
suspicious I.T.R of 6000/- ,5500/-, 6800/- p.Year.
She claims she is a papuer and she requires 97000/- P.M as maintenance.
for herself & our Son MILK 5000/- GROCERY 6000/- MAID 3000/-
INVESTMENTS FOR HERSELF 20000,----
CLINIC RENT 7000/-
INVESTMENTS FOR CHILD 15000/-,-------
TUTION 5000/- P.M
COUNCELLING/Medecince CHILD 3500/-,------------
MEDECINCES 3000/- P.M SCHOOL FEES 7000/-, P.M --------------------SCHOOL
(OTHERS) 3000/-P.M
PROJECT WORK 3000/- P.M, ------------------
SCHOOL BUS 6000/- P.M ENTERTAINMENT 5000/- P.M, -----------------
TRAVELLING 5000/- P.M
I made an application for Production of documents for the various
bifurcated expenses she has made on an additional affidavit cum Interim
Maintenance. After 6 months of furious fight & followup she has replied to
my Production of necessary documents. She states that she does not carry
any documentory evidence regarding her 97,000/-P.M reqriements. she
has categorely made this statement in her reply to my production of
documents for the above except she states that she has only school related
documents & her rental agreement and nothing else. My question to you
all can this be considered as perjury. can this be proved that the claims
made on OATH/AFFIDAVIT are all astronomical false leading to making
claims to reap the fruits of litigation. Can I pray for dismisal of petition
along wirth perjury by making a fresh application or filing a purshis ALL
INTELECTUALS please i need u r guidance asap as my hearing is scheduled
for coming tuesday
 Just because a Petition is dismissed does not necessarily mean that the
Affidavit contained false evidence. Dismissal of a Petition simply means
that the petition is not maintainable for whatever reasons which may or
may not include perjury . An Affidavit (in any matter) submitted to a Court
of law, simply means that the Deponent has made the statements
contained in his Affidavit,on oath before a person competent to receive
such oaths. The statements in the Affidavit would form the basis for the
Deponent claiming whatever relief it is that he claims. The Deponent is
obliged to state the truth in any Affidavit submitted to a competent
authority, and he can be prosecuted for Perjury i.e. giving false evidence
on oath, if it is shown that his Affidavit contained any falsehoods.
A benchmark judgment of the Supreme Court in this context is: 'Re :
Suo Moto Proceedings against Mr. R. Karuppan, Advocate', AIR 2001 SC
2004. The Shaikh case is another example, however the reasoning given re:
Evils of Perjury in the Karuppan case is more specific for citation purposes.
Much earlier former SC Chief Justice Krishna Iyer had also directed that
courts must be pro-active and take strict penal action in every case where
litigants resort to perjury. The judgment is:-
T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal and Another, (1977) 4 SCC 467 Most
judges especially in lower courts are overburdened and would not be
inclined to take suo moto notice of Perjury. It is therefore necessary for the
aggrieved party to file an Application u/Sec.340 CrPC within the main
matter, praying for the Court to sanction and initiate action against the
opponent for offences of Perjury (which come under Chap.X of IPC). It will
be necessary to show prima facie that the offence was committed with
mens rea i.e. with malafide intent / with intent to gain by such malafides.
If the Court is satisfied, it will issue a Show Cause notice to the accused
Party, or in the case of higher courts, may direct the Registry to file the
complaint of Perjury at the concerned court. However, even when this
happens, conviction rates are usually low because the trial is statutorily
conducted by the Public Prosecutor who is mostly incompetent and
indifferent apart from having many other cases to prosecute. The
aggrieved party, if he wants justice, should therefore file an Application
u/S.302 CrPC to be heard in this matter whenever it comes up at the
magistrates court. Lawyers are usually dismissive when their clients
suggest taking action against Perjury committed by the opponent. This is
because most lawyers routinely commit perjury in the affidavits prepared
by them on behalf of their clients. That is why it is so important for any
client to thoroughly read every submission prepared by his lawyer, and
thereafter point out and ensure that any errors, falsehoods (intentional or
otherwise) etc are corrected. Remember that the Deponent is personally
liable for the contents of his sworn Affidavit, not the lawyer.
Mr
1) Do not get hassled with what wife is asking, she can ask for 10cr per
month also, but what will be granted will be based upon your net income
deducting your expenses. Court will also consider ur liabilities/loans etc. If
you are earning 50k (if thats true) then maintenance awarded will not be
more than 50k/3 = 16kpm or max 20kpm for wife and child. So relax
2) Rather than thinking about perjury , you prepare a strong IM statement
stating details of your income/expenditure/loans/liabilities 3) Your wife
thinks she is Smart, but what i can see is you are getting paranoid and
fearing she will be awarded 96k. Boss, wake up your wife is a doctor and
highly qualified and earning. What she is claiming to be earning is
manipulations, you hire a detective to gather proofs of her true income.
There are many High court and Supreme court judgements which says a
highly qualified and able bodied wife has to work and cant harass the
husband for maintenance, in short such wife cant claim maintenance.
However husband has to take responsibility of child maintenance, also the
maintenance amount for the child will have to be shared by wife also since
she is working
Perjury does not lie in the given facts. You can argue that she is showing
exorbitant expenses to extract extortionate amounts or for that matter
she being a doctor herself does not need maintenance. But for child, you
should be ready to meet the reasonable expenses.
It will not amount to perjury. It is a normal legal procedure. Wife file a
petition for maintenance of Rs. 97,000/- per month. Husband in his
counter asked to submit proofs. Wife failed to submit proofs. Then the
court will look into the petitioner of wife and counter of husband and
come to a conclusion that basing on the salary of husband (deducting
expenses, loans and liabilities) award a sum which is normally 1/3 of this
salary. Since the wife is well educated, she will not be awarded. Only the
children are entitled. Born figheter had very well advised regarding the
wife huge demand of maintenance. So, do not worry. Engage a reliable and
experienced laywer he will look after the issue.
Not a case for perjury. Maintainence claim could be rejected as she well
qualofied. Please inbox me your email for relevant judgements.
Meanwhile a case for I-T Department action seems likely
Dear, Brother when she claming that she is earning only 500/- and paying
7000/- as rent. is it necessarry to run the business. go for perjury as stated
by sainath ji. and teach a lesson to that evil
Can perjury be filed by wife if husband was "forced" to lie
Situation - Wife left matrimonial home and went to parents place Wife
filed 498a, DV - applications are full of blunt lies Wife then filed for
maintenance under CRPC 125 Meanwhile wife wrote letters and emails to
my employer, stating that I am a criminal and I should be fired. She wrote
to every possible person where I was working. The emails and letters kept
coming continuously. I have copies of them. Due to this constant pressure
at work, I resigned from the job. In my reply to CRPC 125, I wrote on
affidavit that I lost my job because of my wife which is true. I also wrote
that now I am jobless. But the fact is that I took up another job. I did not
disclose my new job in the court because I know that wife will write letters
and emails to my new job too. Her main intention is to harass me so that I
give up and pay her a hefty permanent alimony (she had demanded 1cr
initially, now she has come down to 50lacs).
Question - I know that I have lied on affidavit. But I lied because I was left
with no other option. Now, can wife file perjury in future (if she finds out
about my job), and will I be punished under perjury? What precautions
should I take so that I avoid perjury on me?
Will fully know the fact of case you have given false information to the
court.
You will be punished for it.
For safe future you must give true facts before the court any wilful
concealment of facts attracts perjury
U must bring facts with evidence what she did with u to the court.
Thank you for replying. Please advise what will be the punishment for
perjury in matrimonial cases like crpc125? Will it be just monetary fine or
can also be jail term?
I'm afraid perjury proccedings may be initiated against you in future for
liying under oath.
Crpc 125 interim arguments help plz
i have filed written reply to crpc125 main n interim applicaiton, not
attached proofs of her qualifications n experience, will produce on
argument day, i hv following queries:
1. i hv given details about her qualificaitons and her past 3 years of
experience in my reply to interim application,
 2. she has written false fact that she is spending too much on higher
education, fact is she is already MCA, and she is not doing any higher
education in any university or college, Can this amout to perjury?
3. I suppose higher education only means studying in a college or
university ?
4. she has not written in her applicaiton for interim about her
qualification, past experience etc. I have written in reply that she has lied
that she is doing any higher education. how can I take benefit of this lie
from court ? Can I file perjury? Should i file? or should i file any other
applicaiton ?
The burden of proof will be on her to produce documents to show her
persuance in higher education. You kindly produce all relevant documents
on argument day and you also proove your point that
1. you have never neglected or deserted her, in turn she deserted you. 2.
She is capable to maintain herself. Sec-125 Crpc specifies -
order for maintenance of wives,children and parents
a ) wife unable to maintain herself Many judgements denied maintenace
stating that qualified wife cannot sit idle and claim maintenance.
1) Let her prove her contentions as the onus lies on her.
2) U can rebut her statements by producing necessary proof.
3) If it is proved false
Agreed with the above experts, There is a apex court judgement statng
that affidavit has to filed in the wife to claim maintanance stating her
inablity to maintain herself and her income should be declared before the
court in the form of Affidavit
Submit supplementary petition along with her qualification and
experience and pray to court that she is not entitled for maintenance as
per CrPC 125 sub section 1 “Maintenance entitlement if wife unable to
maintain herself”. If she has suppressing or hiding the facts or claiming
falsely in the greed of maintenance money, you can write in your
supplementary petition that she has committed perjury under CrPC 340
punishable under IPC 193.
How to file complain of crpc 340 in current dv case
Dear Friends How to file application of CrPC 340 in current DV Case,
further details as under I belongs from Hindu Family, I Was married in Nov
2008. My wife left home @ Aug 2010 them My Wife filed false case against
as below to harras me to get divorce & huge alimony
1: January 2011, u/s 498(a), DP 3 &7,323, 294(b), 114 in Ahmedabad M.M.
Court, Gujarat. case status: Yet to come on board
2: February 2011, CrPC 125 for Maintainace in Junagadh Family Court,
Junagadh, Gujarat. Case Status: Case is dismissed @ Sep 2010, based on
the ground of Juridiction and abuse of process
3: July 2011, DV 2005 in Ahmedabad M.M. Court, Gujarat
4: December 2011,CrPC 125 for Maintainace in Ahmedabad Family Court,
Gujarat Looking forward your supports on this
There are many contadicts in her statement/application therefore i m
looking advise can we file application of 340c under DV
Dear Mitesh if you have prove that the allegation is wrong & she gives
false evidence with intent to procure conviction because 340 Crpc is based
on 195 IPC read 195 Ipc Section 195. Giving or fabricating false evidence
with intent to procure conviction of offence punishable with imprisonment
for life or imprisonment Whoever gives or fabricates false evidence
intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby
cause, any person to be convicted of an offence which
1[by the law for the time being in force in
2[India] is not capital, but punishable with
3[imprisonment for life], or imprisonment for a term of seven years or
upwards, shall be punished as a person convicted of that offence would be
liable to be punished. Illustration A gives false evidence before a Court of
Justice intending thereby to cause Z to be convicted of a dacoity. The
punishment of dacoity is
3[imprisonment for life], or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may
extend to ten years, with or without fine. A, therefore, is liable to
3[imprisonment for life] or imprisonment, with or without fine.
CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment—The same as for the offence—
Non-cognizable—Non-bailable—Triable by Court of Session—Non-
compoundable.
340. Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195.
(1) When upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise any
court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an
inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-
section
(1) of section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation
to a proceeding in that court or, as the case may be, in respect of a
document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that court,
such court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks
necessary,-
(a) Record a finding to that effect;
(b) Make a complaint thereof in writing;
(c) Send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;
(d) Take sufficient security for the appearance for the accused before such
Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the court thinks it
necessary so to do send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and
(e) Bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such
Magistrate.
(2) The power conferred on a court by sub-section
 (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that court has neither
made a complaint under sub-section
(1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of
such complaint, be exercised by the court to which such former court is
subordinate within the meaning of sub-section
(4) of section 195.
(3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed, -
(a) Where the court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer
of the court as the court may appoint;
(b) In any other case, by the presiding officer of the court.
(4) In this section, "court" has the same meaning as in section 195. Dear
mam Thanks for your advise. But matter is that there are so many
contradiction in the filed complain between current DV 2005 and dismised
CRPC 125 case which she submitted in affidavite. so i file an application of
CRPC 340 in DV case based on contradict statement Looking forward your
prompt response for the same Thanks & Regards M Patel
text book law does not work for 340, everybody is claiming other party
false . In this manner courts can not function if they allow 340 for drop of a
hat. Read more at: http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/How-to-file-
complain-of-crpc-340-in-current-dv-case-49282.asp If she has given two
contradictory statements...she can also be booked for perjury (u/s 340
CrPC)..in the case of Gangawaa and State of Mysore, in the Crl.R.P No
311of 1966 (1967)1 MLJ (Crl) 421..the court has stated that "If the
prosecution succeeds in proving that the accused in the witness box
deliberately made two statements which are so contradictory and
irreconcilable with each other, that both cannot be possibly true, he can be
convicted for perjury" Go ahead and file perjury. Vikram
There are many things which are written in books but if you go to facts
and want to file cases on ur bitter half, Lots of quastions comes before
hand and the experts doesnt allow to file these cases. As told by expert
JSDN i also feels that we shud concentrate and give whole heartidly efforts
in our actual case to win it. There are lot of ways where she and her family
will get punished for their falsity. Its a real life experience.
If you do not counter attack, they other party will always be in an
advantage. In cases like 498a, there is always a compromise, very few
cases go till the end, so the person who puts more pressure on the other
party wins. So , try an put as much pressure as possible to the other party .
Vikram
Its individul choice, lot of efforts are also involved in such
counters..............if fail, may encourage the other party too!
We had our marriage dissolved by mutual consent under 13 B in 2006, the
marriage took place in 2004. In our petition, it was mentioned that there
would be no liabiliy of past present and future. After two years, in 2008, I
got married. I have a son who is 2.5 yrs old. In 2009, my first wife filed a
case in family court under 125 CrPc for maintanenace in which she has
stated that I am still her husband and I have dropped at her parents' place
and not taking care of her on false and fabricated grounds. She has not
even mentioned that she took divorce by mutual consent. She is still using
my surname. She has again filed a case for which I dont know whats the
matter as I havent received copy of the petition. She is constantly
harrassing our family. We are very respected in the society, while her
family has tainted background. My question is:
i). Can I file a case for perjury, if yes under what section...?
ii.) Do I need to pay maintenance when I have settled everything while
taking divorce by mutual consent under 13 (B) where it is mentioned that
there won't be any liability of past, present or future.
1. What she has done is that she has remained un-married from last two
years and now claiming under "change in circumstances" such as price rise
index, medical needs, inflation etc.
2. A criminal maintenance can never be subsisted as the maint. is a STATE
issue and not between husband and wife so far as S. 125 CrPC and or DV
Act is concerned.
3. Now what will happen is that she will go on for Appeal if case is
dismissed at lower Court and one of the Aappellate court will re-open the
earlier settled case on para 1 grounds and make you cough little more as
full and final settlement. There are handful of such re-openning of cases by
SC as well as few HC's and some I have already posted nearly 5 months
back here. This is also the reason I have been saying here come what may
never compromise with your wife when a maint. case on floor of a court
and let years pass till a Court finally decides a crl. maint. case instituted by
a wife. But people forget and in a hurry settle their cases and now these
query comes up. The remedy is to contest the case and since you are now
re-married your second wife Court will protect. 340 crpc case, a counter
case on 125 crpc case
Dear sir, I have filed 340 crpc case as a perjury on 125 crpc running case in
magistrate court at the stage of her byan and cross-examination along with
a judgement/citation of allahabad high court " 340 dispose off first".but
court is not ready to accept it . court says it is not rulling , it is only order.
Judgment : Court No.29 High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow
Bench, Lucknow Writ Petition No. (M/S) of 2002 Syed Nazim Husain Vs.
The Additional Principal Judge Family Court & another Hon'ble A. Mateen,
J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. Since a
very trivial point is involved I propose to dispose of the petition at this
initial stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner has approached this Court
with the prayer that the order dated 24.10.2002 be quashed. From the
order dated 24.10.2002 it comes out that the learned Additional Principal
Judge, Family Court on the application, moved by the petitioner under
Section 340, 344 Cr.P.C. instead of disposing of the same had postponed
disposal of the said application and ordered that said application may be
disposed of after evidence is recorded in case No. 566/89. In my view, if an
application is moved in the pending case bringing to the notice of the court
that any false evidence knowing well has been filed or fabricated in such
proceedings, the court should dispose of the said application first before
proceeding any further or before recording of further evidence. In the
circumstances, I dispose of the present application and direct the
Additional Principal Judge Family Court to dispose of the application so
moved by the petitioner under Section 340, 344 Cr.P.C. before proceeding
further in accordance with law. With the above observations the petition is
disposed of finally. 9.1.2003 sd- A.Mateen Kindly sugest me is there any
judgment related to this case?
Court is wrong in its approach. You may file a criminal review over the
order of trial magisrae before Sessions Judge.
Sec 340 cr.p.c empowers only after completion case only, I think in your
case 125 cr.p.c is in statge of cross examination. You cannot file sec 340 at
that statege. See sec 195 cr.p.c. AS per SEc 340 cr.p.c after completion of
trail and cncluded you can move the same court where the witness
deposed false and scuh case the court can take cognizence and sent the
same to Magistrate haivng teriiriorai jurisdiction on which the court
situated. K.V.S.S.PRABHAKAR RAO ADVOCATE RAJAHMUNDRY ( A.P)
section 340 is good tactics for counter action but courts discourage it so
you must be persistance and go in revison. It is an excellant strategy and
all 498 a sufferes must adopt it.
 No, Mr. Rao there is nothing prohibit inquiry & complaint u/s 340 Cr.P.C.
during the trial of matter. Magistrate only send a criminal complaint to the
concern magistrate. He will not take cognizence of offence.
340. Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195.
(1) When upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise any
court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an
inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-
section (1) of section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in
relation to a proceeding in that court or, as the case may be, in respect of a
document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that court,
such court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks
necessary,-
(a) Record a finding to that effect;
(b) Make a complaint thereof in writing;
(c) Send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;
(d) Take sufficient security for the appearance for the accused before such
Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the court thinks it
necessary so to do send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and
(e) Bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such
Magistrate.
(2) The power conferred on a court by sub-section
(1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that court has neither
made a complaint under sub-section
(1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of
such complaint, be exercised by the court to which such former court is
subordinate within the meaning of sub-section
(4) of section 195. (3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed,
-
 (a) Where the court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer
of the court as the court may appoint;
(b) In any other case, by the presiding officer of the court.
(4) In this section, "court" has the same meaning as in section 195. an dif
you are not satisfied with the court/Magistrate order then you can file an
appeal in superior court u/s 341 as under: 341. Appeal.
(1) Any person on whose application any court other than a High Court has
refused to make a complaint under sub-section
(1) or sub-section
(2) of section 340, or against whom such a complaint has been made by
such court, may appeal to the court to which such former court is
subordinate within the meaning of sub-section
(4) of' section 95, and the superior court may thereupon, after notice to
the parties concerned, direct the withdrawal of the complaint or, as the
case may be, making of the complaint which such former court might have
made under section 340, and if it makes such complaint, the provisions of
that section shall apply accordingly.
(2) An order under this section and subject to any such order, an order
under section 340, shall be final, and shall not be subject to revision
Qeustion on crpc 125 and prejury
My Wife filed crpc 125 by putting all false allegations. Can I file prejure for
any of below,
a) My wife mentioned, I have purchased house property with dowry
amount and it belongs to her. But I have taken Loan from LIC and paid
through my salary account using EMIs, Can prejury apply here b) She
mentioned her parents spend 2,00,000/- for her medical treatment, and I
made medical claim enchased same without providing any medical
treatment with a cheating intention to employer and insureance company.
but the hospitalization is cahless and I requrested insurance company to
provide detials, they sent me email that all the bills are paid to hospital
and not to me. Thanks, lmn
Has she filed an affidivat for the same , if so than you can file for pre-jury
under crpc 340
First, you get all proofs against her and if she is working and no kids then
you need not pay any maintenance. However burden is on you to prove.
Ask her to provide affidavit which will be useful later to file perjusry etc.
First important thing in 125, is to give maintenance amount, you need to
get proofs on her source of income.
Yes you can file prejury case u/s 340 crpc if she had filled affidavit and
solemn affirmation under oath.
Just read this draft to clear your doubts:
Sample/Draft S.340 CrPC
Application for perjury IN THE COURT OF A.C.J Magistrate
__TH COURT AT Fatehpur, U.P. C.C. NO. ______/2010
Mrs. Anuradha ..….Applicant Versus _________________ ….
Respondent[ Present Applicant ]
RESPONDENT’S APPLICATION U/S 340(1) of Cr.P.C, 1973.
FOR THE ACT OF PERJURY COMITTED BY THE APPLICANT UNDER
AFFIDAVIT AND SOLEMN AFFIRMATION UNDER OATH SUBMITTED BY THE
MAIN APPLICANT IN Fatehpur COURTS.
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR:
I, Mr. _____________________, respondent above named, do hereby
state on solemn affirmation as under:-
1. Present petitioner is father in law of main applicant
2. Main applicant is well qualified lady, having completed B.A and
currently doing M.A and registered with employment exchange, and is
educated and literate, and knowingly and willfully has been filing multiple
cases against respondent applicant, being a educated lady has armored
self-same with tool and weapons of criminal procedures to harass
respondents by way of different ways.
3. It is most respectfully submitted by the Respondent that the couple
stayed not more than __ days, i.e.______________.
4. The facts mentioned and maintained by applicant wife are contrary to
applicant wife’s father in different litigations about same event on same
date, i.e. on the date of marriage; The applicants self same submissions are
contrary to her own self substantiate facts, made to mislead the Ld Court.
5. That present applicant respondent knew the complainant and her
family members before marriage since more than 20 years and knowing
about them the respondent without any demand of dowry
directly/indirectly, without giving or taking any dowry of whatsoever
nature married main applicant wife since both families knew one another
since long.
6. It is admitted fact that main applicant including 2 sisters have filed 498a
matter against their respective families, and in trial main applicant wife
also has accepted this very fact, the alleged facts of all complaints by all
sisters in their own 498a cases is same that they were assaulted and
demand of 50,000 Rs was made and they were kicked out of the
matrimonial home
7. That is it submitted on affidavit that the main applicants allegations are
that she was assaulted and demand of 50,000 Rs and motorcycle was
made. Affidavit filed 26-10-2010 states that she went to police station on
13th July to kotwali Fatehpur, her complaint was not taken is alleged.
Hence she forwarded the written complaint to SP Fatehpur by way of
registry the same information was given, the same can be observed in
____/____ under affidavit and substantiated evidence, annexed as
Annexure “A1″
 8. That in witness box the self-same complainant has substantiated the
fact, in the matter of 53/06, it is material on record and substantiated that
on 12-07-2005, self-same applicant wife went to kotwali Fatehpur and
498a case was registered in the kotwali and the final report of that matter
has been reported by Kotwali Fatehpur.
9. In clear view and plain reading the applicant complainant is educated
person and literate lady, and has willfully with clear oblique intentions to
harass the present applicant and to mislead the court of law in different
courts, in the imaginary notion that one court of law cannot come to know
what she has substantiated in another court of law, and there by
misleading the court of law and playing pranks of judicial institution and
false statements, from one court to another court of law, and harassing
innocents, and interfering in the administration of justice. And is using
court of law as a tool. Heavy fine should be levied and stern action and
punishment should be provided to restrain other such litigants from
making such false allegations and complaints against entire family, and this
litigant has tried to break the family system, If such litigants are not
punished others will gain confidence and the family system will start to
destroy in Indian Society.
10. It is admitted fact that father of complainant has also been tried for
murder case; this fact is also admitted by the father of complainant and
main applicant and is on material on record. 11. That Respondent stays in
________ since he was 17 years of age and continues to stay there, these
above facts in paragraph 3 and paragraph 4 were not known and were
kept hidden from the respondent and family, this amount to cruelty upon
the present applicant respondent and his family members.
12. It is most respectfully submitted by the Respondent that the main
applicant wife has filed for the reliefs u/s 498A, 406, 323, 504, and 506 of
IPC by way of 156(3) on oath on 07.09.2005, which was received as 65/05
in the court of C.J.M Fatehpur; with allegations that she was assaulted and
demand of 50,000 Rs and motorcycle were made by respondents and other
members within 21 hours of marriage and she left thereafter.
13. Respondent had to move Honorable High court of Allahabad for relief
u/s 482 Cr.P.C and Stay Arrest until filing of Charge sheet was granted by
Honorable High Court of Allahabad.
14. Main Applicant wife filed one more private complaint dated
23.08.2006 with J.M Court Number 13 again u/s 498a, 323, 504, 506 and 34
of IPC and u/s ¾ of The Dowry Prohibition Act, on same grounds and same
facts which should be null and void as per 300(1) Cr.P.C and to avoid
double jeopardy.
15. Respondent again moved Honorable High court of Allahabad for relief
u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and Honorable High Court of Allahabad directed for
consolidation of both cases of 498a and directed to submit report under
173 Cr.P.C. in consolidation, the said Order from Honorable High Court of
Allahabad is annexed as Annexure “A”.
16. Executive machinery police has filed a final “B Summary” report u/s
173 Cr.P.C on 14.02.2007. Main applicant wife has filed a protest
application the order is passed, and upon which 1477/10 is initiated.
17. That Main applicant wife has filed false Maintenance Case u/s 125
Cr.P.C, Case No. ____/05 on __.__.2005, in J.M Court Fatehpur. Against
husband who is otherwise a student, and is allegedly stated that he earns
20,000 Rs, which is false and imaginary to which no proof could be
established and is unnecessary tactics used by applicant who is well aware
of court procedures; And 125 Cr.P.C proceedings, relief to the wife were
prohibited and application by applicant wife was dismissed at the outset.
18. The Maintenance case 125 Cr.P.C beyond doubt was dismissed by way
of long and lengthy speaking order; as per Order Annexed as Annexure
“B”.
 19. Father of complainant wife , during Trial of 125 Cr.P.C, In the facts
substantiated stated that he did not visit Respondents home until his
daughter came back home when she was demanded dowry, only then he
came to know about demand of dowry and assault on her. Annexure “C”
green shaded region on page number 4 in ____/05 case. Adding that he
was not even aware by any sorts of communication or by phone or by
some person or by any other means, Shri Satyanarayan Awasthi was not at
all aware that his daughter was demanded dowry or was assaulted by
respondent/family members.
20. On the contrary, Main Applicant wife in her sworn affidavit and
submissions in Case of u/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, Case Number __/06 in
the J.M. Court Number 1 on page number 6 “dafa no. 8″ , states that she
was being assaulted by respondent and family members during such time
the servant who also worked in Main Applicants home also, saw this and
went and informed family of Main applicant wife, and the same was
communicated to family of main applicant by the applicant over telephone
that there was nothing , But hearing this , since the distance between Main
Applicant and Respondent is very negligible and can be reached in less
than 5 minutes by walk; Father, Mother, Brother and some relatives came
to respondent home and after discussing the matter was resolved, but that
continued and then thereafter main applicant was forced to leave
Matrimonial home and go to parental home.
21. These prima facie facts of the submissions of main applicants and her
family members as per paragraph 13 and 14 of this application above, who
have moved the court of law and initiated process that is otherwise, abuse
the law, that is otherwise for destitute women application but is utilized
for harassment making use of law as a weapon and tool to make innocent
family members face criminal trial, which amounts to a very serious
nature, The application moved by main applicant wife being not
maintainable and she has suppressed the relevant facts and application
being false , baseless, vexatious, imaginary. And hence do not make out
any prima facie case against the respondents so as to summon the
respondents to face trial and in this circumstances taking cognizance
against the respondents is bad in law and is untenable in the court of law,
cannot be sustained, that it amounts to abuse of the process of Hon’ble
court.
22. The facts mentioned and maintained by applicant wife are contrary to
applicant wife’s father in different litigations about same event on same
date ; The applicants self same submissions are contrary to her own self
substantiate facts
23. That the application filed by main applicant wife during various times
have changed the facts according to the need of context and sense of
urgency and has manipulated facts with willful intention, while submitting
information to the Ld Court, in various court of law, in cases filed by main
applicant wife; the facts are imaginary and false, and this amounts to grave
misuse of court of law and interference in the administration of justice and
denying the liberty to the real victims, here respondent and family
members.
24. The changing facts and misuse by main applicant wife, amount to
disturbing the purity of law and damaging the serenity of the stream of
justice and interferes in the administration of justice thereby performing
acts of perjury in every application in the notion of applicant wife that law
is meant for harassment and since the applicant is a female will be
exempted for her cruelty and using judicial system for her barbaric acts
upon the respondent and his family members and destroying image and
reputation.
25. The persons who use the court of law for their private and personal
vendetta should be punished severely so as to curb the menace of
misusing and harassing the innocent families, such cases should become
the highlight cases and offenders should be sternly dealt with, without
looking at the gender or caste or creed, which are not exempted from
Article 15(3) of Constitution Of India.
26. The main applicant wife has willfully and with malafide intentions has
filed the instant application, which is devoid of any merit and is
interference in the administration of justice.
27. The Main Applicant wife has also filed Application u/s 12 of “The
Protection of women from Domestic violence, Act”. U/s 18/19 of the said
Act, On 30.05.2009, case number __/09, in the CJ.M Court Fatehpur.
28. The Main Applicant has filed the matter against Respondent, his
____________, ______________, also has roped and implicated brother Of
respondent ______________________without any cause of action, again
fabricating evidence that she was assaulted on false and fabricated
grounds.
29. It is on material record that the Domestic Incident Report, In Domestic
Violence Application, created as per procedure, by probation officer stated
that no police officials are aware of the facts mentioned in the mentioned
domestic violence application, where the incident allegedly had took place
in domestic violence application, and that even after inquiry made by
probation officers enquiry, and sequences of findings and observations
made by probation officer came to conclusion that such facts as claimed by
applicant wife were found false in the knowledge of people at alleged
scene and scenarios mentioned in domestic violence application, and
hence the same were false, the probation officer during such probe also
came to know that applicant wife has filed 498a two times and that her
125 Cr.P.C and revision of 125 Cr.P.C were rejected by honorable court,
when wide probe inquiries were made by the probation officer.
 30. That clearly the domestic violence application was also moved with
the willful intention to injure and harass the respondent and family
members and using court of law as a weapon for harassment.
31. That the domestic violence application is also dismissed on the
meritorious grounds by way of lengthy speaking order, by the magistrate.
32. The main applicant has also fabricated medical report in the domestic
violence to prima facie prove Domestic Violence, and the incidents alleged.
The facts mentioned by main applicant wife are absolutely ambiguous and
imaginary has suppressed the relevant facts and application being false,
baseless, vexatious, and imaginary. And hence do not make out any prima
facie case against the respondents so as to summon the respondents to
face trial and in this circumstances taking cognizance against the
respondents is bad in law and cannot be sustained it amounts to abuse of
the process of Hon’ble court if without prima case having being made out a
person is summoned to face trial.
33. The application of main applicant’s wife under section 125 Cr.P.C that
was rejected and dismissed by Ld Court. The order was challenged by wife
and the same was again rejected in session’s court while under revision,
Revision Order is annexed as Annexure “D”.
34. The Main Applicant wife has concealed and suppressed true facts,
submitted under oath has false submissions under oath, and more so are
contrary to the submissions to this honorable court, which are perjurious
in nature.
35. The main applicant wife in her complaints / applications until year
April 2011, made no whisper of any Bengali girl with whom
_______________had any intimation relation, In Application under
affidavit filed by applicant wife u/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act it is alleged
that photo of Bengali girl was with ___________________ displayed to
applicant wife and he started kissing the photo in front of Applicant wife.
That the facts are baseless and imaginary and are false and fabricated and
such cruel acts are performed since year 2005 where she didn’t even spend
more than 21 hours.
36. Such allegations were not present in any previous applications of 498a
matter or 125 matter, or revision under 125 , even Domestic Violence
application was filed and the reliefs are dismissed by way of wide speaking
order, and such new facts have landed on the legal grounds, this clearly
and loudly entails that applicant is a habitual litigant in fabricating
evidences and infringing rights and injuring the rights of other people,
without due consideration about the grave injury caused by willful
intention with imaginary illusions, thereby causing grave hurt and
character assassination and injecting mental agony in the hearts and soul
of respondent and his family members. Thereby not only infringing rights
of applicant but also willful interference in the administration of justice
and disturbing the serenity of the stream of justice.
37. From above instances and admitted facts and arising facts after long
and more than 5 years. That main applicant wife is a habitual offender and
having two sisters who have filed 498a against upon their respective in-
laws, and father being tried for murder case, is continuously over the years
since marriage of one single day, has filed application after application
using courts as weapon to dominate the family of in-laws and to grab the
land and money of in-laws, to satisfy her needs and her individual
principles, she has been attempting to interfere the administration of
justice, it is imperative to punish such litigants, who are using heavy hands
in the name of weaker section and destroying the very purpose of
legislations provided to weaker sections of the society.
38. The applicant wife has filed an application , This new application that
was meant to delay and prevent her substantiation of submissions, which
stands rejected, In this application she demanded that she will not appear
in the court of law until 40 Lakhs Bond was not filled, in matter of
Restitution of conjugal rights u/s 9 Of Hindu Marriage Act. 39. There by
denying early relief to respondents and interference in the interest of
justice to innocent victims. Thereby interfering in the administration of
justice.
40. In the Trial of 125 Cr.P.C, PW1 The complainant wife substantiated
that my father is poor and she has two sisters and father cannot maintain
her, In-laws are rich, And PW2, the father of complainant wife in his
substantiating evidences, under oath stated that he is poor and he cannot
fulfill the maintenance required to his daughter and his daughter also
cannot maintain herself.
41. On the contrary, in the party witness 3, Sister of complainant wife, in
the matter of __/06 u/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, under sworn affidavit,
named xyz, in her affidavit xxx has maintained under oath that her father
has ample amount of land of 50 to 60 Bighas of the agricultural land.
42. It is pertinent to note that, This is clear voice of fabrications and
contrary statements which lead to the interference in the administration
of justice and destroying the image of innocent victims respondents and
his family members who are undergoing mental agony, character
assassination, loss of reputation, being defamed in application after
application by family of all three daughters who have filed 498a cases
against their in-laws and father who has been also tried for murder case
and also stands witness in cases.
43. Applicant being legally bound by oath in this Hon’ble Court to state
truth in her affidavit but the applicant and her witness has with knowledge
and willful intention have deposed false in their affidavit and
substantiated evidences. Applicant has being knowingly and intentionally
given false statements in judicial proceedings.
 44. From above facts and instances, it is clear and loud, that this main
application by wife is false, fabricate, contrary to statements maintained in
the honorable court by the self-same applicant wife, That it is proven on
material record, the statements made under oath are contrary and
injurious to respondents in the instant complaint made by applicant wife.
45. Respondent states that the applicant wife is a guilty of the Act of
perjury by making false statements, on oath solemnly affirming, willfully
and knowingly that those Statements are false, in “AFFIDAVITs” on various
dates submitted by her in this Hon’ble court with oblique motive to
misguide and mislead this Hon’ble court with a view to extort money
where as she is not entitled for any relief under the said Act.
46. The facts mentioned and maintained by applicant wife are contrary to
applicant wife’s father in different litigations about same event on same
date ; The applicants self same submissions are contrary to her own self
substantiate facts
47. Respondent states that the material on record before this Hon’ble
Court prima facie proves that the applicant has committed the act of
perjury in her submission and the same has been described in detail.
48. It is most respectfully submitted that Orders by the Judiciary branch
under proceedings have clearly and loudly mentioned that petitioner
should come to the court in clean hands and Injunction Temporary as well
as permanent Injunctions of petitioner was prohibited and rejected. As,
her averment were not reliable based on documentary evidences
presented by respondent, and It can be loudly and strongly observed that
without strict proof petitioner applicants any averment is unsafe and
unreliable, and are changing facts like air on earth. 49. It is most
respectfully submitted that paragraphs and facts in instant application by
applicant wife are self-submitted facts under oath by the main petitioner
wife in more than two different courts having different legal stands as
pointed out above, thereby playing fraud with the court and prejudice the
Ld. Court to allow relief and harassing the real innocent victims, and
thereby committing the act of perjury under oath and solemn affirmation,
and with willful intention to injure, and to interfere administration of
justice and harass the respondents. {B} The petitioner has comitted an act
of perjury in her following submissions in view of her submission given
above:
50. Respondent states that, the applicant has made the following willfully
perjurious, intentionally deposed false and misleading statements on oath
solemnly affirming, in her aforesaid “AFFIDAVITs” submitted by herself in
this Hon’ble court with oblique motives and are verified and Prohibitory
Orders also have recognized as false by the respective Ld. Court. Which
clearly proves that the main applicant wife is deposing false on affidavit in
reply in this Hon’ble Court on her whims and fancies thereby committing
the act of perjury by giving false evidence during the judicial proceedings in
this Hon’ble court? Hence applicant wife is punishable for the act of
perjury, which adversely affects the administration of justice.
51. Respondent states that, Applicant filed the Affidavit filed by main
applicant wife in applications submitted an Application under this instant
Ld Court. are false, vexatious, concocted and misconceived to harass the
Respondents and make him/them to run from pillar to post, Respondent
states that applicant has not come with clean hands before this Hon’ble
Court and suppressed material facts intentionally, creating new facts as
delaying tactics and denying early justice, thereby interfering in the
administration of justice. It is pertinent to note that applicant is only
interested in making ambiguous and vexatious allegation against the
respondent without any iota of evidence in support of her submissions and
trying to mislead and misguide this Hon’ble court by making vague
allegation against the respondent. Respondent states that petitioner has
not come to the court in clean hands and this material fact have been
intentionally suppressed and concealed or created on self-imaginations
knowingly from this Hon’ble Court in the main application to mislead this
Hon’ble Court, this is very clear and has been proved with substantial
evidence by the respondent.
52. In order to appreciate the aforesaid aspect, I deem it necessary to
reproduce the relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C.: 340. Procedure in cases
mentioned in Section 195.
(1) When upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise any
court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an
inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in Clause
(b) of Sub-section
(1) of Section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation
to a proceeding in that court or, as the case may be, in respect of a
document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that court,
such court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks
necessary,-
(a) Record a finding to that effect;
(b) Make a complaint thereof in writing;
(c) Send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;
(d) Take sufficient security for the appearance for the accused before such
Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the court thinks it
necessary so to do send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and
(e) Bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such
Magistrate … 195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public
servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to
documents given in evidence.
(1) No court shall take cognizance- … (b)
 (i) Of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, Sections 193 to 196 (both
inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence
is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in
any court, or
(ii) Of any offence described in Section 463, or punishable under Section
471, Section 475 or Section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is
alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or
given in evidence in a proceeding in any court, or
(iii) Of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the
abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause
(i) or sub-clause
(ii), except on the complaint in writing of that court, or of some other
court to which that court is subordinate.
40. In the conspectus of the aforesaid provisions, if the relevant provisions
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) are
perused, it does appear that the provisions of Sections 193, 199, 200 and
209 are attracted. The said provisions read as under: IPC Section 193.
Punishment for false evidence Whoever intentionally gives false evidence
in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the
purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either descripttion for a term which may
extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; and whoever
intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either descripttion for a term which may
extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation 1-A trial before a Court-martial; [* * *] is a judicial
proceeding. Explanation 2-An investigation directed by law preliminary to
a proceeding before a Court of Justice, is a stage of a judicial proceeding,
though that investigation may not take place before a Court of Justice. IPC
Section 199. False statement made in declaration which is by law
receivable as evidence Whoever, in any declaration made or subscribed by
him, which declaration any Court of Justice, or any public servant or other
person, is bound or authorized by law to receive as evidence of any fact,
makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes
to be false or does not believe to be true, touching any point material to
the object for which the declaration is made or used, shall be punished in
the same manner as if he gave false evidence. IPC Section 200. Using as
true such declaration knowing it to be false Whoever corruptly uses or
attempts to use as true any such declaration, knowing the same to be false
in any material point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave
false evidence.
Explanation-A declaration which is inadmissible merely upon the ground
of some informality, is a declaration within the meaning of Sections 199 to
200…. … IPC Section 209.
Dishonestly making false claim in Court Whoever fraudulently or
dishonestly, or with intent to injure or any person, makes in a Court of
Justice any claim which he knows to be false, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either descripttion for a term which may extend to two
years, and shall also be liable to fine. 53.
14. Respondent states that thus material on record before this Hon’ble
court and perusual of detail aforesaid description in this application clearly
proves that applicant has committed act of perjury by intentionally giving
enormous false and fabricated evidence during judicial proceeding in this
Hon’ble court by submitting false in her “AFFIDAVITs”. Thus filing false
affidavit in the court of law, causes obstruction in the course of justice and
also adversely affecting the administration of justice. Also applicant cannot
be permitted to take liberty of spoiling purity of justice. In this facts and
circumstances, the respondent has filed this present application in this
Hon’ble Court in exercise of jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court u/s 340(1) of
thr Cr.P.C, 1973. Against the main applicant wife and it is to expedient in
the interest of justice to prosecute the applicant as prima facie evidences
are adduced in that behalf. Hence applicant is punishable for the act of
perjury, adversely affecting the administration of justice.
54. Respondent further states that all adverse allegations and incidents
mentioned/deposed by the applicant in this Hon’ble court had never
happened and the same are false, baseless, malicious, vexatious,
concocted, futile and imaginary story made intentionally to harass
respondent from court to court across Uttar Pradesh states and put
respondents under pressure by misusing the provision of law conveniently
and cunningly in attempt to extort money from the respondent. it goes to
show that, the main applicant wife is only interested in making ambiguous
and vexatious allegations against the respondent without any iota of
evidence in support of her submissions and trying to misguide the Hon’ble
court by making vague allegations against respondent and whatever
allegations where sole testimony of main applicant. In fact there is no
proper allegation against the respondent. Respondent states and submits
that, the continuation of prosecution against the respondent is not only
the abuse of process of law, but also defeats the ends of the justice. The
Applicant‘s application u/s 498a, 323, 504, 506, 34 of IPC and ¾ of The
Dowry Prohibition Acts devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed with
exemplary costs and suitable punishment in the interest of justice.
55. I say that therefore, it is clear from the above Para that the petitioner
is guilty of the act of perjury, as she has made the aforesaid false
statements on oath with solemn affirmation providing false information to
this Hon’ble court, willingly and knowingly that the same are false and the
respondent has submitted the documentary evidences that those
statements are false. In these circumstances, the respondent has filed this
present application in this Hon’ble court in exercise of jurisdiction of this
Hon’ble court u/s 340(1) of the cr.p.c, 1973. Against the petitioner and it is
expedient in the interest of justice to prosecute the petitioner as Prima
Facie evidences are adduced in that behalf.
56. Respondent adopt each and every statement, submission and
averments made in this application, that all statements are from applicant
wife’s applications and are brought forth to the notice of the instant Ld.
Court.
57. Respondent craves leave of this Hon’ble court to add, to alter and
amend this application. Respondent carves leave to add, alter and amend
this application.
58. Respondent had not filed any other application for the act of perjury
committed by the applicant in this Hon’ble court against the applicant in
any other Hon’ble court.
59. Respondent has not filed any other application for the act of perjury
against the petitioner, either in this Hon’ble court or any other Hon’ble
court for the subject matter hereto.
60. It is therefore, most humbly prayed by the respondent that;
a. By considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, respondent most
humbly pray that this Hon’ble court be pleased to kindly charge the
petitioner and commit the matter to the concerned Metropolitan
Magistrate court to prosecute the petitioner for the act of perjury in her
application to implicate falsely to innocent victims.
b. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Your Honor may
Kindly dismiss the application filed by the applicant under 200 Cr.P.C be
dismissed with exemplary costs to meet the ends of justice
c. Costs of the proceedings may kindly be awarded to the Respondent
from the applicant.
 d. Initiate the proceedings of perjury for infringement of rights and
harassment, using the sections which are for destitute women, the same
are misused and harassment of respondent and female party thereby
playing pranks with the modesty of women of the women party.
e. Kindly pass such other suitable orders as may deem fit and proper to
meet the ends of justice in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS AND JUSTICE, THE ABOVENAMED
RESPONDENT AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.
Solemnly affirmed at _________. Dated;
this ____day of December, 2010.
Respondent
VERIFICATION
I, Mr. ____________________. ________Years of age, presently residing at
______________________________. The respondent above named do
hereby state and declare on solemn affirmation that whatever stated in
the above Application is true and correct as per my knowledge and belief;
that no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed there
from. Solemnly affirmed at ____________. Dated; this _____day of May,
2011.
Can recovery warrant in sec 125 be recalled
Can recovery warrant issued in sec 125(3) be recalled on plea that sec
126(2) is pending?Notice has not been served on me in the 126(2)
case.When can family court judge recall the recovery warrant issued by
him?My lawyer is saying that on next date family court judge can recall
recovery warrant by imposing fine amounting to 1000rs on husband.Please
guide.Thanks.
yES RECOVERY WARRAN T CANB E RECALLED DU ETO PENDENCE
OFSECTION 125 (2)CR.P.C.That's why Magisdtrate i going toimpose
apunisshment of fine of Rs.1000 on you.SEE the below given Judgments of
Supreme court and high cour judgments. Gladiator Fighting Legal Terrorism
Home INDIAN PENAL CODE Helpline Resources Strategy FAQ Case Cycle
Strategy to Handle Police CrPC 340-
Perjury Home > CrPC 125 > CrPC 125-Judgments CrPC 125-
Judgments September 8, 2011 498agladiator
Husband showed income as 2000/-PM. Family court ordered 3000/- PM !!
August 13, 2011
Fighting Legal TerrorLeave a comment
Mahendrasinh vs Jignasa on 11 August, 2011
M.R. Shah, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print
SCR.A/1689/2011 2/ 2
ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1689 of 2011
====================================== MAHENDRASINH
GANPATSINH PARMAR – Applicant Versus JIGNASA MAHENDRASINH
PARMAR D/O JASHVANTSINH K RAJPUT & 1 –
Respondents ====================================== Appearance :
MR JV JAPEE for the Applicant. None for Respondent No.1. MR LB DABHI,
APP for Respondent No.2. ======================================
CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 11/08/2011 ORAL
ORDER
1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has
been preferred by the petitioner – husband to quash and set aside the
impugned order dated 30/10/2010 passed by learned Additional Judge,
Family Court, Vadodara in Criminal Misc.Application No.1624 of 2010, by
which, learned Family Court has awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month to
respondent No.1 – wife towards maintenance.
2. Ms.Japee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has
submitted that learned Family Court has materially erred in awarding a
sum of Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.1-wife towards
maintenance when income of the petitioner-husband is Rs.2,000/- per
month. She has submitted that the petitioner is serving as temporary
employee in Airtel Company and his salary is Rs.2,000/- per month and
that respondent No.1-wife has failed to produce any documentary
evidence with respect to the income of the petitioner- husband. It is
further submitted that in absence of any documentary evidence on record
with respect to income of the petitioner- husband, learned Family Court
has materially erred in awarding Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.1
– wife towards maintenance.
3. Heard Ms.Japee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner
and considered the impugned judgement and order passed by learned
Family Court, Vadodara.
4. At the outset, it is required to be noted that as observed by learned Trial
Court, the petitioner has tried to suppress his income. It is also required to
be noted that the petitioner has not produced his salary slip issued by the
Company. It is not believable that the Company like Airtel would not issue
salary slip to the petitioner. It is also not believable that income of the
petitioner is Rs.2,000/- per month. In the facts and circumstances of the
case more particularly considering price rise, inflation, etc, it cannot be
said that learned Family Court has committed any error and/or illegality in
awarding amount of maintenance to respondent No.1-wife, which calls for
interference of this Court in exercise of power under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, there is no
substance in the present petition, which deserves to be dismissed and is
accordingly dismissed. [M.R.SHAH,J]
Judgement HC: 4500/- PM maintenance on a montlhy salary of 12000/- PM
which is nearly nearly 38% August 8, 2011
Fighting Legal Terror
Leave a comment
Yunus vs State on 29 July, 2011
M.R. Shah, Gujarat High Court Case Information System BODY
CR.RA/644/2010 2/ 2 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT
AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 644 of 2010
========================================= YUNUS FAKIR
MOHAMMED BELIM – Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 –
Respondent(s) =========================================
Appearance : MR HARSHAD K PATEL for Applicant(s) : 1, MR LB DABHI, APP
for Respondent(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 2 – 3.
========================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 29/07/2011 ORAL ORDER 1. The present
Criminal Revision Application has been preferred by the applicant-husband
to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated
08/07/2010 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rajkot in
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1654/2008.
2. The maintenance application was submitted by respondents nos. 2 and
3 for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 97/2004 and the learned trial
Court granted the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month to
respondent no. 2-wife and Rs. 1,000/- to respondent no. 3-minor child.
Thereafter, after a period of four years, respondents nos. 2 and 3
submitted an application before the learned Family Court for
enhancement of the amount of maintenance under Section 127 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure and the learned Family Court considering the
income of the applicant at Rs. 12,190/- partly allowed the said application,
being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1654/2008 and enhanced the
amount of maintenance from Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 2,500/- per month to
respondent no. 2-wife and from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 2,000/- per month so far
as respondent no. 3-minor child is concerned. Being aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Rajkot in directing the applicant to pay a total sum of
Rs. 4,500/- per month to respondents nos. 2 and 3 by way of maintenance
the applicant-husband has preferred the present Criminal Revision
Application.
3. Having heard Shri Yogesh Jani, learned advocate appearing for Shri
Harshad Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant and
considering the impugned order and considering the income of the
applicant at Rs. 12,190/- and considering the fact that the applicant is
serving in government school in the pay-scale of Rs. 5000-180-8000 and
considering the price rice and the value of rupees etc., it cannot be said
that the learned Family Court has committed an error and/or illegality
and/or has awarded exorbitant amount of compensation, which calls for
the interference of this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. No case
is made out to interference with the impugned order in exercise of
revisional jurisdiction.
4. In view of the above, the present Criminal Revision Application deserves
to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. (M.R. SHAH, J.) siji Top
Categories:Judgement HC: If recovery petition is pending in HC then similar
application in HC is not maintainable August 8, 2011 Fighting Legal Terror
Bachubhai vs Ketan on 3 August, 2011
Author: M.R. Shah, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print
SCR.A/1180/2011 1/ 1
ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1180 of 2011
========================================= BACHUBHAI CHUNILAL
KOTHARI – Applicant(s) Versus KETAN BACHUBHAI KOTHARI & 1 –
Respondent(s) =========================================
Appearance : MS.FALGUNI D.TRIVEDI for Applicant(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1, MR LB DABHI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 2, =========================================
CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 03/08/2011 ORAL
ORDER
1. Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
preferred by the petitioner for execution of the order passed by the
learned Family Court, by which the order of maintenance has been passed
in favour of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that petitioner has already
initiated the proceedings before the Family Court for recovery of the
amount as provided under the provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 by way of recovery application as well as the warrant has
also been issued, hence, present petition is not entertained. Even
otherwise, for execution of the order passed by the learned Family Court,
petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable
and/or is not required to be entertained. As and when any proceedings are
taken up before the learned Family Court for execution and/or for
recovery of the amount, the same are ordered to be expedited.
2. With this, present petition is dismissed. (M.R. Shah, J.) *menon Top
Categories:Judgement HC: Though cruelt by wife against husband is proved
but Judges are giving suggestion to wife to file CrPC 127 for more
maintenance !!! August 6, 2011Fighting Legal Terror1 comment Sneh Lata
vs Raja Bahadur Rayakwad on 21 July, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 29/2011 Sneh Lata W/o Sri
Raj Bahadur Rayakwad, D/o Late Sri Sompal Singh R/o Quarter No. 219,
Type-3, Sector I, BHEL, Ranipur, Haridwar, Tehsil & District Haridwar.
…..Appellant Versus Raja Bahadur Rayakwad S/o Sri Bihari Lal, R/o Quarter
No. 219 Type-3, Sector-1, BHEL, Ranipur, Haridwar, Tehsil & District
Haridwar. …. Respondent Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate, present for the
appellant. July 21, 2011 Coram :Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble Servesh
Kuar Gupta, J. PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. (Oral) This appeal, preferred under
Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment
and order dated 24.3.2011, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in
Suit No. 204 of 2005, whereby said Court has decreed the suit for divorce
instituted by the respondent (husband) by moving petition under Section
13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the lower court
record. None turned up on behalf of respondent even after service of
notice.
3. Brief facts of the case are that appellant xxx got married to respondent
xxx on 6.3.1972, following Hindu rites. Two daughters, namely, Gitanjali
and Varsha, were born out of the wedlock in the 2 year 1974 and 1975
respectively. Out of the two daughters, Varsha is already married and she
lives in Germany with her husband. Another daughter Gitanjali was doing
MCA when the said petition was filed. In the divorce petition, filed by the
respondent Raja Bahadur Rayakwad, who was aged 59 years at the time of
filing the petition, pleaded that for more than 10 years, appellant (wife)
was not discharging her matrimonial obligations and continuously treated
him with cruelty. It is further pleaded by the husband that at the time of
marriage, appellant was not well educated, and he got her educated
thereafter. He also pleaded that he is looking after both the daughters. As
to the cruelty, committed by his wife, it is pleaded by the husband in the
petition for divorce that neither the wife cooks food for him nor allows
him to enter in the kitchen so that he may cook food for himself. This has
made the life of the husband miserable. He is left to go to hotels to have
his every meal. It is also pleaded by the husband that a case under Section
125 of CrPC was filed by the wife, though she was living with her husband
in his house, in which, vide order dated 21.9.2004, he was directed to pay
maintenance @ ` 3,000/- per month, which he is paying to her. It is also
alleged by the husband in the petition for divorce that his wife threatens
him that if his ailing mother dared to enter in his house, she would sprinkle
the kerosene oil and set herself on fire. The extreme allegation in the
petition for divorce made by the husband is that his wife has gone to the
extent of alleging that the respondent (husband) had illicit relations with
her own sister. With these allegations, the decree of divorce was sought.
4. Appellant, who was respondent before the trial court, filed written
statement in which she admitted that she was married to the present
respondent and two daughters 3 were born out of the said wedlock.
However, she denied the allegations of cruelty. She pleaded that her
husband is a man of loose character. It is also alleged by her that after the
retirement, the present respondent wants to withdraw his provident fund,
etc. and deprive the appellant from the same. She has also pleaded that
though she is living in the quarter of BHEL allotted to her husband, but she
has no other house to go.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed
following issues:
(i) Whether the opposite party treated the petitioner with cruelty, as
alleged in the petition? If so, its effect?
(ii) Whether the petitioner has illicit relations with other women? If so, its
effect?
(iii) To what relief, if any, the petitioner is entitled to?
6. The petitioners (present respondent in this appeal) got himself
examined as PW1 xyz, in support of his case. Wife also got her affidavit
filed, but she did not produce herself for cross-examination even after
being given several dates, and ultimately, her evidence was closed. In the
circumstances, the trial court heard the learned Counsel for the parties and
found that the husband has made out a case for divorce on the ground of
cruelty committed by his wife.
7. Shri D, learned Counsel for the appellant, argued before us that the
appellant has no house to go, and at the old age, the respondent has
neglected her. However, we are of the view that real issue before the trial
4 court was whether the wife treated her husband with cruelty or not. We
find that it is proved by the husband, by adducing evidence, that the wife
treated the husband with so much of cruelty that his life became
miserable. Neither any food was given to him nor he was allowed to enter
in the kitchen to cook for himself (He had to go to hotels for his every
meal). Not only this, making allegation against the husband that he is in
illicit relationship with his real sister, is a grave case of mental cruelty. It is
also brought on record that appellant told her husband that if he dared to
invite his ailing mother in the house, she would set herself on fire. All
these instances, proved on the record, show nothing but cruelty on the
part of the appellant against her husband. As such, we are in agreement
with the trial court that the husband has proved that he was subjected to
cruelty by his wife, and entitled to decree of divorce. In the circumstances,
we do not find any scope of interference, in this appeal, with the findings
recorded by the trial court and the decree of divorce passed by it.
8. As far as the maintenance is concerned, it is also proved on the record
that under Section 125 of CrPC, the appellant is already getting ` 3,000/-
per month as maintenance. In case, said amount is insufficient, as more
than six years have gone by since the order was passed, the appellant
(wife) may move an application under Section 127 CrPC for enhancement
of the maintenance.
9. For the reasons as discussed above, this appeal has no force and the
same is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Prafulla
C. Pant, J.) 21.7.2011 PRABODH Categories:Judgement HC: Duration of
marriage insignificant while considering the application for maintenance
under Section 125 CrPC August 1, 2011
Fighting Legal Terror
1 comment Sikandar vs Shabanabanu on 12 July, 2011
ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 933 of 2011
====================================== SIKANDAR MOTIBHAI
QURESHI – Applicant Versus SHABANABANU D/O MOHHAMMAD RAFIK
SHAIKH & 1 – Respondents ======================================
Appearance : MR FEROZ H PATHAN for the Applicant. None for
Respondent No.1. MR KP RAWAL, APP for Respondent No.2.
====================================== CORAM :
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 12/07/2011
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner – husband has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned
order dated 11/03/2011 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court
No.1, Ahmedabad passed below Exh.19 in Criminal Misc.Application
No.1346/2007, by which, learned Judge has directed the petitioner to pay
a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.1 – wife towards
maintenance.
2. Mr.xxx, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has
vehemently submitted that there is a marriage span of four months only
and the petitioner is required to look after his old aged parents and,
therefore, learned Family Court has materially erred in awarding
Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.1- wife towards maintenance.
3. Having heard learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner
and considering the impugned order in awarding Rs.2,000/- per month to
respondent No.1 – wife towards maintenance and in the facts and
circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the learned Family Court
has committed any error and/or illegality in awarding the amount, which is
too excessive and which is required to be interfered with by this Court in
exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. Now so far as contention on behalf of the petitioner that the marriage
span is four months only is concerned, the same is insignificant while
considering the application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure. In these hard days and price rise, etc. and
considering the fact that the petitioner is rickshaw driver of the Transport
Vehicle in Industrial area, it cannot be said that the learned Family Court
has committed any error in awarding Rs.2,000/- per month towards
maintenance to the respondent No.1- wife. No case is made out to
interfere with the order passed by the learned Family Court, Ahmedabad.
5. In view of the above, there is no substance in the present petition,
which deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
Judgement Gujrat HC: Husband released from Jail only after he pays 50%
maintenance and expenditure for wife August 1, 2011
Fighting Legal Terror2 comments Kishorbhai vs State on 19 July, 2011
Author: M.R. Shah, Print SCR.A/1683/2011 2/ 2
ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1683 of 2011
=========================================================
KISHORBHAI HAKABHAI DANIDHARIYA – Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF
GUJARAT & 3 – Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance : MRPRATIKYJASANI for Applicant(s) : 1, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
for Respondent(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 2 – 4.
=========================================================
CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 19/07/2011 ORAL
ORDER Mr.P.Y. Jasani, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
applicant has stated at the bar that applicant has already deposited
Rs.35,000/- with learned Family Court, which would be 50% of the arrears
of maintenance. He has requested to grant some more time to deposit the
balance amount of maintenance by way of installments. However, he has
requested to release the applicant on bail. He has also stated at the bar
that so far as the regular amount of maintenance is concerned, the
applicant shall continue to pay as ordered by the learned Family Court.
Hence Notice returnable on 2nd August,2011 on condition that applicant
shall deposit a further sum of Rs.4,000/- with Registry of this Court
towards the probable cost/expenditure to be incurred by respondent nos.2
and 3 for appearing in the present matter, which shall be permitted to be
withdrawn by respondent nos.2 and 3 irrespective of outcome of the
present Special Criminal Application . It will also be open for the
respondent nos.2 and 3 to withdraw the amount of Rs.35,000/-, which the
applicant has deposited with the Family Court without any further order,
which shall be paid to them by the concerned Family Court by account
payee cheque and on proper identification and verification. In the
meantime, applicant is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing
personal bond of Rs.5,000/-to the satisfaction of the Jail Authority. Direct
service is permitted. (M.R.SHAH,J.) Vahid Top Categories:
Judgement Gujrat HC: 140 days jail to husband for 14 months of arrears of
maintenance June 6, 2011Fighting Legal Terror3 comments
CR.MA/1040/2011 3/3 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT
AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 1040 of 2011 In SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 2065 of 2010
=========================================================
JAVIDBHAI AKBARBHAI AJMERI – Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT &
1 – Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance : MS BENAZIR M HAKIM for Applicant(s) : 1,MR MA SAIYAD for
Applicant(s) : 1, MR DC SEJPAL, APP for Respondent(s) : 1, MRS NASRIN N
SHAIKH for Respondent(s) : 2,
=========================================================
CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 28/01/2011
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Learned APP Mr. Sejpal waives service of rule for respondent
State.
2. Petitioner is husband of respondent no.2. He has been taken in custody
for nonpayment of maintenance. By an order dated 11.1.2011 passed by
the Family Court, Rajkot, he is ordered to undergo imprisonment for 140
days for 14 months of arrears.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner could not pay the
amount because of acute financial difficulties. He however, intends to
clear all arrears including arrears arising subsequent to the Family Court
passed the order. She pointed out that as of now the petitioner is in
arrears of approximately Rs.75,000/- of maintenance. She prayed for a
reasonable time for clearing the arrears looking to the weak financial
condition of the petitioner.
4. Learned advocates drew my attention to order dated 17.1.2011 passed
by this Court in Special Criminal Application No.2065/2010 which was
passed in husband’s petition for reduction in maintenance. While not
interfering with order of maintenance passed by the Family Court,
petitioner was granted time upto 31.3.2011 to clear all arrears. This order
however, was passed unmindful of the fact that petitioner is already taken
in custody pursuant to the order passed by the Family Court on 11.1.2011,
since this development was not known to the learned advocates also.
5. Under the circumstances, the petition is disposed of with following
directions :
i. The petitioner shall deposit with the Family Court a sum of Rs.10,000/-
latest by 10.2.2011.
ii. The petitioner shall deposit further sum of Rs.25,500/- with the Family
Court latest by 15.4.2011.
iii. Remaining amount of arrears of maintenance shall be deposited with
the Family Court latest by 31.7.2011.
iv. On condition that petitioner shall abide by the above time frame of
payments, he is ordered to be released forthwith from custody, pursuant
to order dated 11.1.2011 which order in effect shall be kept in abeyance.
v. In case the petitioner makes default in depositing the amounts, on an
application filed by wife before the Family Court, it would be open for the
the Family Court to issue directions for taking him back in jail.
vi. As and when amounts are deposited before the Family Court, same will
be disbursed in favour of wife without waiting for no objection from the
petitioner or his advocate. These directions shall be effective in
supersession of time limit granted in order dated 17.1.2011 in Special
Criminal Application No.2065/2010. At this stage in view of above-formula
provided, legality of order dated 11.1.2011 is not gone into. It is expected
that petitioner shall continue to pay prospective monthly maintenance
regularly. Rule made absolute accordingly.
(Akil Kureshi,J.) Categories:Judgement Gujrat HC: Husband in jail for non-
compliance of the order of maintenance to wife June 6, 2011
Fighting Legal TerrorLeave a comment SCR.A/813/2011 1/1 ORDER IN THE
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CRIMINAL
APPLICATION No. 813 of 2011
============================================= BILAL TAIYABBHAI –
Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 – Respondent(s)
============================================= Appearance :
THROUGH JAIL for Applicant(s) : 1, MR AJ DESAI ADDL. PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 2 – 3.
============================================= CORAM :
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE xxx Date : 06/04/2011
ORAL ORDER
This petition is preferred by the petitioner-convict for grant of parole leave
to prefer an appeal before this Court for non-compliance of the order of
maintenance to be paid to his wife as ordered by the Family court,
Panchmahal. Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, the
petitioner can make suitable arrangement through office of the Central
Jail, Vadodara and/or may also approach the Legal Services Authority to
file an appeal. No parole leave can be granted at this stage. This petition is
rejected.
Categories:Judgement HC: Applicant wife in tears in Judges chanber and
gets favorable order in CrPC 125 and Contempt May 10, 2011
Fighting Legal Terror
S Ambwani Shail D/O Late Sone Lal vs Manoj Kumar Yadav, D.I.G. And The
Family Court on 30/11/2005
JUDGMENT Sunil Ambwani, J.
1. This contempt petition was filed on 18.11.2002, impleading Shri Manoj
Kumar Yadav, a Head Constable in civil police posted at Jalaun (now under
suspension), D.I.G., Head Quarter, Allahabad and Family Court Kanpur
Nagar with the allegations that the Family Court has not complied with the
order dated 4.9.2002, to decide her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
for maintenance against her husband Shri Manoj Kumar Yadav By the
order dated 4.9.2002 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 7688/2002, the
Court directed the Family Judge, Kanpur Nagar to decide case No.
535/2002 under Section 125 Cr.P.C, within four month from the date of
presentation of the certified copy of the order. On 3.12.2003 following
orders were passed: This contempt petition tells a pathetic story of the
functioning of Family Courts in the State of uttar Pardesh. The facts giving
rise to this contempt-petition demonstrate the manner in which Family
Judges are, dealing with the sensitive issues arising before them. The
object and purpose of the establishment of the family Courts was to
promote conciliation in, and secure speedy settlement of disputes, relating
to marriage and family affairs and for matters connected therewith. The
law commission in its 59^th report (1994) stressed that in dealing with
disputes concerning the family, the Count ought to adopt an approach
radically different from that adopted in ordinary civil proceedings and that
it should make reasonable efforts of settlement before commencement of
the trial. The 1976 amendment to civil procedure code providing for
special procedure in such matters concerning the family, did not achieve
the desired result. The Courts continued to deal with family disputes in the
same manner as other civil matters and the same adverrsary approach
prevailed. The Family Court Act 1984 was, enacted to set up for speedy
settlement of family disputes. The reliefs concerning properties,
declaration as to legitimacy in person, guardianship of a person are
custody of a manner and maintenance including proceedings under
Chapter- IX of the code of criminal procedure are entrusted to these
special Courts, It has been made obligatory under Section 9 on the Family
Court to make efforts for settlement. Section 11 provides that proceedings
may be held in camera fi the family Courts desires and shall be so held if
either party so desires. The assistance of medical and family welfare
experts can be taken under Section 12, or such persons (preferably a
woman was available), including professional services for assisting the
Family Court in discharging the functions imposed by the Act, The facts and
circumstances in which this matter arose, giving rise to these contempt
proceedings, and the manner the Family Court dealt with the matter
completely frustrates, the object and purpose of the Act. The Family Courts
Act 1984 was enforced in Uttar Pradesh by notification No. 79/1/86-145
dated 4.9.1986 w.e.f. 2.10.1986. It is significant to note here that the High
Court has not made the Family Courts Rules as provided under Section 21
of the Act so far, and that all the family Court in the State have devised
procedures for its functioning, adapting almost the same old adversarial
approach to the issues arising before these Courts. The petitioner Shail
appeared in person. In the entire proceedings, and even in this Court, she
has not sought any professional help. The applicant belongs to a poor back
ground, and is at present employed as. Class IV employee in a school. She
is a weak, frail but persuasive and full of Courtesy to Court. She is not
aware of technicalities of law but is quite confident pleading her matters. 1
did not find her absent on any dates fixed in the matter when the matter
came up before me. A first information report under Section 328/376 IPC.-
P.S. Naka Hindola, Lucknow, was lodged registering case crime No.
55/2002, by the applicant alleging that she was raped by Sri Manoj Kumar
Yadav, Head Constable on 18. 1.2002 at Apsara Hotel, Police Station Naka
Hindola Lucknow. The applicant alleges that accused Sri Manoj Kumar
Yadav, thereafter to avoid his prosecution persuaded the applicant for
solemnizing marriage with him. On. his persuasion and in order to save
herself from social disgrace, and stigma on her character, she agreed to
marry him. The marriage took place on 20.7.2002. After marriage, Sri
Manoj Kumar Yadav deserted her. He was not prepared to fulfill the
marital obligations and did not take care of the applicant. She was left is
destitution without any help from him. She filed an application under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance from her husband Sri Manoj Kumar
Yadav before the family Court Kanpur Nagar, The proceedings were
pending. The applicant filed a Criminal Misc. Application No. 7688 of 2002,
which was disposed of with the following order; Supplementary affidavit is
taken on record. Heard Smt. Shall, applicant appeared in person and
learned AGA. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with
a prayer to issue a direction to the judge family Court Kanpur Nagar to
decide the case of the application No. 535 of 2002 of the applicant
expeditiously. It is further prayed that the Judge, Family Court be directed
to disposed of the application of the applicant for interim mandamus, It is
stated by Smt. Shail that she is unable to maintain herself and her
husband, opposite party No. 3 Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav is Head Constable in
U.P. Police. As such, an interim mandamus be awarded to her. After
pursuing the entire material on record, this application is finally disposed
of with a direction to the Judge, Family Court Kanpur Nagar to dispose of
Case No. 535 of 2002 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. within a period of four
months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order.
With the aforesaid direction this application is disposed of. Dt. 4.9.2002
Sd/- Hon. V.K. Chaturvedi, J. She filed another criminal miscellaneous
application No. 10073 of 2003 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court
in which by an order dated 17.1.2003, this Court gave following direction;
This case was earlier listed on 16.1.2003 but the applicant appearing in
person told that she has not the sufficient means to come on the next date
from Kanpur. Request has therefore been made that here case be taken
today and she be permitted to appear in person. She has also been
provided assistance of Amicus Curie, On her request this application is
taken up today. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (which is hereinafter called as the I Code’) has been brought for
issuing appropriate direction to this Court of IV Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Lucknow for expediting the disposal of the criminal case I
crime No. 55 of 2002} under Sections 328, 376 I.P.C. police station Naka
Hindola, Lucknow. It is said that the applicant was raped by Sri Manoj
Kumar Yadav, Head Constable on 18.1.2002 at Apsara Hotel Police Station
Naka, Lucknow. Report of this incident was lodged by the applicant at the
police station which was registered at crime No. 55 of 2002 at that police
station. Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav thereafter persuaded the applicant for
solemnizing marriage so as to avoid his further prosecution. On his
persuasion she agreed to m marry with the applicant on 20.7.2002. After
marriage Sri. Manoj Kumar Yadav again deserted her. He was not prepared
to fulfill his obligations as husband and was not, even taking care of the
applicant. She was left as destitute without any money. Resultantly she
has to bring the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code before the
Family Court, Kanpur Nagar. Those, proceedings are still pending. She has
not been paid any money by Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav. At this stage the
prayer is confined that gher case which is pending before the Family Court,
Kanpur Nagar, be expedited so that she may not suffer aqony any longer.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, Principal Judge, Family
Court, Kanpur Nagar is directed to expedite the disposal of the
maintenance proceedings under station 125 of the Code, pending before
him prefer4ably within a period of four months. With these observations
this application is finally disposed of. Dt.17, January, 2003 Sd/- Hon. S.S.
Kulshrestha, J. This contempt petition was filed by applicant under Section
12 of the Contempt Courts Act on 18.11.2002 against Manoj Kumar Yadav,
D.I.G. Headquarters Allahabad, and Family Courts Kanpur Nagar alleging
that she filed a certified copy of the order dated 4.9.2002 in Family Court,
Kanpur Nagar, but the order was not complied with within time and that
warrants be issued to the opposite parties. On 19.11.2002, this Court
directed her to file a supplementary affidavit and that on 11:2.2003
following order was passed on the contempt petition; Supplement 7
affidavit filed today is taken on record. Non-compliance of the order dated
4.9.2002 passed in Crl. Misc. Application No. 7688 of 2002 is alleged in the
contempt petition. By the aforesaid order dated 4.9.2002 passed in Crl.
Misc. Application No. 7688 of 2002 respondent No. 3 Judge Family Court
Kanpur Nagar was directed to decide case No. 535 of 2002 under Section
125 Cr.P.C. within a period of four months from the date of representation
of the certified copy of the order. Respondent No. 3 Judicial Officer and is a
part of the administration of justice. It is expected that every person will
give due regard to the orders of the Court. If for some reason he was
unable to decide the case within the time fixed by this Court he had to
approach this Court and obtain further time. Every citizen of this country
has a right to legal remedy for which he approaches Courts and if any
direction is issued; by this Court the same must be complied with within
time allowed by the Court. It does not depend on the sweet will of any
person to ignore any part of the order. Non-compliance of the order is
clear contempt. A division bench of this Court in case of P.N. Srivastava v.
State reported in 199 (1) Local Bodies and Educational Service Reporter
page 742 (Lucknow Bench) held that: The direction issued by the High
Court of Supreme Court in its decision carry equal importance as that of a
statute or Rules and hence directions are required to be complied with and
disobedience amounts to contempt as such the decision of Court partakes
the position of statutory rule. Relying on the case of All India Reporter
Karamchari Sangh and Ors. v. All India Reporters Ltd. And Ors. AIR, 1988
Supplement SCC 472 the Court further held: In view of the decision of this
Court dated 27.8.1996 the opposite parties had no option but to complete
the enquiry within four months (time allowed by the Court in that case). It
further implies that in case opposite parties were unable to do so they
could approach the Court and seek further extension of time. In M.L.
Sacndev v. Union of India and Ors. the apex Court held that Government
under duty to comply with the other within time set by Court and in any
case if it was not possible to comply with the order within the time for
whatsoever reason then the only course open was to seek extension of
time or further instructions (also see State of Bihar v. Subhash Singh 1997
(1) SC 430) From the above decisions it in apparent that the directions of
the Court are else as good as statutory rules. The parties to whom the
direction is issued have no care to carry out the orders of the Court.
Whenever the Court uses the words “preferably’ as far as possible,
expeditiously, at an early date” in its judgment and order, the direction is
to he complied with within the time allowed by the Court, in the order s
and judgment. Even Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act provides
limitation for initiating contempt proceedings if the order is not obeyed by
the contemnor, hence it is imperative that the order of the Court in which
even no time is fixed are to be faithfully complied with in letter and spirit
within a reasonable time, say four months from the date of the
communication of the order. This would be in order to enable the parties
to come before the Court within a reasonable time for initiation of
contempt proceedings, if they choose to file the same. Sometimes plea of
filing of appeals do not give any handle to the authorities/ officers for not
complying with the orders of the Court in letter and spirit when no interim
orders are granted by the appellate Court staying the order impugned. The
respondent (s) did not comply with the order within the time given by this
Court nor applied far extension of time. The time has expired and the
respondent has taken the order very lightly. Issue notice to respondent No.
3 to show cause within one month why contempt proceedings may not be
drawn against him for deliberate and willful disobedience of the orders of
this Court dated 4.9.2002 passed in criminal Misc. Application No. 7688 of
2002. However, in view of the guidelines given by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in case of Suresh Chandra Poddar 2007 (I) SC 766, I give one more
opportunity to respondent No. 3 to comply with the order dated 4.9.2002
passed by this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 7688 of
2002 within a period of one month. In case the said order is complied with
he shall no he personally present. In case the said order is not complied
with, he shall he personally present on the date fixed. List after one
month. Dt 11.2.2003 Sd/- Hon. Rakesh Tiwari, J. That on 28.3.2003, the
registry of ‘this Court received a letter from Sri Vishal Chandra Saxena,
Principal Judge, Family Court Kanpur Nagar No. 40/03/ Family Court
Kanpur Nagar dated 25.3.2003, The Family Court informed this Court that
applicant filed a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on, 27.7.2002 alongwith a
copy of the order dated 17.7.2002 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1O] 56 of
2002. By this order, the High Court found that it was not possible to give
reliefs claimed in the writ Petition as the allegations made by her, required
investigation from the competent authority, and in the absence of any
evidence no conclusion can be drawn. The applicant was directed to make
complaint to the appropriate authorities. The Munsarim raised objections
on the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. On 27. 7.2002 stating that she
has not stated anywhere in the application and affidavit as to how (he
marriage ‘was performed between her “and Manoj Kumar Yadav, and that
the documents annexed with the application and the order dated
17.7.2003 does not establish that she is legally married, for which no proof
was given alongwith her application. The case was not registered and since
the Family Court was lying vacant the Civil Judge, Senior Division was
looking after the work.. The matter was fixed on 12.8.2002 for hearing on
24.8.2003 and thereafter on 13.9.2002. On that date petitioner/applicant
produced a Copy of the order of the High Court dated 4.9.2002 in which
the case number in the Family Court was shown as case No. 535 of 2002, to
be decided in four months. At that time both the Family Courts were lying
vacant and thus the matter was fixed on 28.9.2002, The concerned clerk
registered her application as Crl. Case No. is 108 of 2002 Thereafter the
matter was fixed on 7.11.2002. From 28.9.2002 to 1.12.2002 the
jurisdiction of Kanpurnagar was transferred to District Fatehpur. The Civil
Judge, Senior Division Fatehpur/Incharge Officer found that the application
under Section 125 has not been registered. On 7.1.2002, he gave applicant
an opportunity, to file objections and fixed the t matter on (0.12.2002. The
applicant did not remove the defects; she filed two applications on
11.11.2003 and appeared in person before the District Judge Fatehpur.
After hearing her, an order was passed by -District Judge, Fafehpur that
until the defeats are removed, the hearing was not possible. Sri Vishal
Chandra Saxena, further, reported to this Court that applicant resorted to
incorrect facts before the High Court and gave a wrong case number. He
took over charge as Principal Judge Family Court on 28.10.2002. On 10.
12.2002 when the matter was put up before him he found that case No.
535 of 2002 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is between Smt. Akila Kanwar and
Mohammad wasim Khan. The applicant did not appear on 10.12.2002, and
did not file any objections to the office report. The case was thus fixed for
16.1.2003. On that date the applicant again did not appear and the matter
was fixed on 26.4.2003. He informed this Court in his report that he has
not committed any contempt and that in fact the applicant has not
removed defects. She filed the application before the High Court, with
wrong case number and that the contempt notice be discharged. The
applicant filed an application during summer vacations on which the
matter was nominated by Hon’ble Senior location Judge on 2.6.2003 to be
heard by me. I found that the simple matter of deciding application under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been made complicated by Principal Judge Family
Court Kanpur Nagar, The application was disposed of with following
directions: I further find that the Principal Judge, Family Court Kanpur
Nagar instead of helping the petitioner and getting the defects in her
petition cured has tried to put the blame upon her. A lady appearing to
person and claiming maintenance for destitution under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C. has to be given a helping hand, and a healing touch by the Court.
Instead of providing necessary assistance, the Principal Judge, Family
Court, Kanpur Nagar, acting against the object of establishment of family
Courts ‘and has tried to put the blame upon her. He has also casted
aspersions upon her for providing wrong case number to the Court It was
apparently a, mistake and could have been easily ignored by the Family
Court. This Court takes exception to the report of the Family Judge by
which he has sent the matter back to the Court and is trying to
unnecessary delay the proceeding and harasses the applicant. In the
aforesaid circumstances, 1 direct Special Judge. Family Court to provide all
possible assistance to the applicant to cure the defects in her application,
and to pass necessary orders as expeditiomly as possible and preferably
within one month. He is reminded on the fact that he is impleaded as a
contemnor, and has to purge the contempt instead of aggravating the
contemptuous actions. List on 22.7.2003 Dt. 3.6.2003 Sd/- Hon. Sunil
Ambwani, J. On 12.9.2003, the matter again came up before me. The
applicant informed the Court that in pursuance of the order dated
3,6.2003, the Family Court has issued summons, and assured her that in
case her husband does not appear, the proceeding will be taken ex pane
against him. She submitted that inspite affixing dates nothing has been
does in the matter. On this mention, I directed the Family Court to
conclude the matter as expeditiously as possible, within intimation to the
Court and fixed the matter on 20.10.2003. On 29.10.2003, the applicant
filed an application complaining that inspite of aforesaid directions, the
Principal Judge Family Court has not decided the matter so Jar. She filed a
copy of the order dated 28.7.2003 passed by Family Judge in which it was
staled that inspite of notices sent to Manoj Kumar Yadav and thereafter
sending notices through the Director General of Police, he has not
appeared and thus the matter was directed to proceed ex-parte against
her husband. This Court took notice of the fact that inspite of repeated
directions, the Family Judge is not deciding the matter. The applicant
pleaded that she is on the verge of destitution, and that her husband who
was earlier accused of rape has deserted her,” and is was not prepared to
fulfill his obligations as husband and was not even taking care of the
applicant. She was left as destitute without any money. She informed the
Court that the Family Judge makes uncalled comments on her appearance,
and takes pleasure on asking unnecessary questions. On these allegations
Sri Vishal Chandra Saxena was required to appear before this Court on 1
7,11.2003. Following observations were made while summoning] him to
this Court; It is matter of serious concern that a Judicial Officer/
Subordinate to the Court, is taking the directions casually. This Court has
repeatedly requested him and advised him to expedite the matter. Once
the orders passed by this Court came to his knowledge, it was his duty to
pass necessary orders expeditiously and in accordance with law. On 17
11.2003 Sri Vishal Chandra Saxena, ‘ Principal Judge, Family Court Kanpur
Nagar (now District Judge J.P. Nagar) appeared before this Court. Sri O.P.
Singh, Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar was also present and
had brought the records of case No. 708/2003, under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
along with him. Sri Saxena informed the Court that the Application under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. was finally decided by him on 5.8.2003. On the ‘request
made by Sri S.K. Garg, learned standing Counsel, the matter was taken up
in chamber at 1.30 PM. I have heard applicant in person and the
explanation given by Sri Vishal Chandra Saxena. The applicant was
anguished, hurt and was in tears in explaining the conduct of the Family
Judge. She stated that whenever dates were fixed, he called and heard
only the clerks presenting the matter and went on fixing dates. She was
taken by surprise and was not aware of order dated 5.8.2003 by which her
application was dismissed. She questioned, the manner in which she has
been dealt by the Family Court. Initially she was harassed for not giving
correct details of her marriage and fixing dates after dates. She stated that
in order to avoid compliance her application number wax changed without
informing her The clerks in the office of Family Judge treated her shabbily,
and told her that she will get nothing from the Court. She also questioned
the authority of Family Court in disbelieving her marriage and rejecting
tyer application for maintenance inspite of the fact that the matter was
proceeding ex-parte against her husband. She submitted that if the Family
Court was not satisfied with her affidavit, she should have been given a;
chance to establish her marriage. She accused the Family Judge to have
questioned her marriage and thereby putting her to disrepute in society.
According to her no one disputed the marriage and in] the ex-parte
proceedings, the Family Judge had no right and authority to disbelieve her
marriage and to take away her rights against the person who had raped
her and thereafter married her. Sri Vishal Chandra Saxena explained that
in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the wife must” establish the
marriage. Thee was no pleading of the date of marriage or the manner in
which the marriage was performed. The applicant absented on 5.8.2003
and thus he had no option but to dismiss the application. The order dated
5.8.2003 shows that the matter was proceeding ex-parte and that her
husband had not appeared. The family Court proceeded, to examine’ the
affidavit and found that whereas she had pleaded that on 18.1.2003 after
the incident she had accepted the opposite party as her husband and was
discharging duties of wife and was given some amount towards
maintenance, The Family Judge found that there was no pleading as to
how her marriage was solemnized. Since she had not produced any
documentary proof or evidence of her marriage, the Family Court found
that she is not legally married wife of the opposite party. The Family Judge
thereafter recorded the observations of this Court in Writ Petition which
was decided on 17.7.2002, commented on her conduct of giving wrong
Case number to the High Court and the fact that she made a mention to
the Family Court on 10.7.2003 to adjourn the proceedings for one hour as
she has to take leave from Juhari Devi College from where she is serving.
The Family Court observed that the applicant is serving in Juhari Devi
College and rejected the application. This Court takes strong objection to
the manner in which the Family Court decided the matter. The statement
given by Sri that the applicant absented herself is doubtful. The applicant
has been diligently pursuing the proceedings. She has appeared in High
Court on several occasions and was always present in the Court. Her
manners and demeanor in Court demonstrated her desperation and
destitution. Almost all the orders passed by this Court were ignored by the
Family Judge. He was aware of the direction of this Court to decide the
matter within four months. Inspite of the fact that the applicant kept on
appearing before him and sought compliance of the directions could not
persuade the Family Judge to give her even a brief hearing. Inspite of the
fact that the matter was proceeding ex parte, he chose to dismiss the
application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on the ground that she has no been
able to establish her marriage. There was clear and specific averments in
her application supported by her affidavit that Sri is her husband. The
opposite party did not appear in the matter and that the matter
proceeded, ex parte. Inspite of these glaring facts and the object and the
purpose of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as Family Court
Act 1984, the District Judge chose to reject the application under Section
125 Cr.P.C. in her absence. This Court is deeply pained and anguished in
the manner the applicant armed with four orders of this Court was dealt
with by the Family Judge. Sri Vishal Chandra Saxena, the then Family
Judge, Kanpur Nagar failed to discharge his duties as a Family Court Judge
and appears to be prejudiced by the persistence of the applicant and the
orders passed by this Court requesting him to expedite the matter. I find,
that the explanation given by Sri Saxena for delay in deciding the matter,
cannot be accepted and reprimanded him for his conduct. After the order
was reserved the applicant moved two applications dated 20.11.2003, to
transfer the matter. Both the applications are rejected. The order rejecting
the application under Section 125 dated 5.8.2003, has concluded the
proceedings. The Court, however, finds that Sri Vishal Chandra Saxena,
District Judge, U.P. Nagar was negligent in discharge of his duties in
deciding the matter within the time fixed by this Court, on 4.9.2002, which
was filed on record by the applicant in Family Court on 13.9.2002. He took
notice of the order on 10.12.2002 but did not care to decide the matter,
within reasonable time. The two reminders given to him by this Court on
11.2.2003 and thereafter on 3.6.2003 were ignored by him. He fixed long
dates (on 16.1.2003n he fixed the matter for 26.4.2003) and proceeded ex-
parte by his order dated 10.7.2003 and thereafter decided the matter on
5.8.2003 in the absence of the applicant who was appearing in person,
without giving her any opportunity to give any evidence of her marriage.
The Courts subordinate to the High Court must carry out the orders. It was
the duty of the Family Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar to decide the
matter within the time fixed by this Court. If he found that there was some
procedural delay or that the proceedings cannot be concluded for any
reason, if he should have applied to this Court for extension of time or at.
least sent his report. He was reminded time and again to conclude the
proceedings. Repeated orders of this Court dated 4.9.2002, 17.1.2003,
11.2.2003 and thereafter a warning given to him by order dated 3.6.2003
were ignored. The Family Judge proceeded to decide the matter as a
routine matter without caring for the repeated orders issued by this Court.
In the meantime, the applicant suffered harassment and humiliation by
the officials in his Court. He could not even find a few minutes of his
precious time to hear the applicant. Sri Vishal Chandra Saxena, Principal
Judge, Family Court Kanpur Nagar, now posted as District Judge, J.P. Nagar
has clearly disobeyed the orders of this Court. He was heard in person on
17.1.2003. He did not choose to file any explanation in writing nor sought
any time to give a reply. His submission in defence is not satisfactory. He
had full knowledge of the directions of this Court dated 4.9.2002 and
17.1.2003. He submitted a report to the Court on 25.3.2003, making
allegations against the applicant but did not decide the matter. He did not
submit any further report, nor sought extension of time to decide the
matter. Having proceeded ex parte, he chose to decide the matter in
petitioner’s absence. He ahs willfully and deliberately avoided the timely
compliance of the orders. He has not only disobeyed the orders of this
Court but has also acted in breach of the object and purpose of the Family
Court’s Act 1984. The registry shall place this order before the Registrar
General for information to the Court, to take appropriate action against Sri
Vishal Chandra Saxena now District Judge, J.P. Nagar. The Contempt
Petition is disposed off accordingly. The petitioner filed SLP (Crl.) No.
585/2004 in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court after hearing her in
person passed an order on 29.3.2004, which is quoted as below: The
petitioner, appearing in-person, is heard on the question of grant of leave
to appeal. The facts of this case disclose an uncommon story. The
petitioner was victim of an offence under Section 376 and 328 of Indian
Penal Code at the hands of the respondent Manoj Kumar. To save himself
from the peril of conviction, the respondent agreed to enter into a
marriage with the petitioner and the petitioner too agreed to do so. The
dream of happy married life soon turned out to be a nightmare as the
petitioner was deserted by the respondent. On these averments the
petitioner filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking
maintenance before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar. The
delay in disposal of the application persuaded the petitioner to knock the
doors of the High Court. The High Court showed indulgence to the
petitioner by directing the Family Court to expeditiously conclude the
proceedings. As no substantial relief was forthcoming, the petitioner this
time invoked the contempt jurisdiction of the High Court complaining of
non-compliance with the orders of the High Court by the Presiding Judge,
Family Court. By order dated 29.10.2003, the learned Judge of the High
Court has expressed his anguish having found a prima facie case of non-
compliance with the orders of the High Court having been made out. The
High Court has directed summoning of the Presiding Judge of the Family
Court to appear before the High Court in-person for the purpose of framing
charges for willfully disobeying the orders of the High Court. The petitioner
seeks leave to file appeal against the order of the High Court. Her
grievance is that the initiation of the proceedings in contempt is alright but
then she has been left still high and dry as no relief has been allowed to
her. Appearing in-person, she submits that the High Court ought to have
directed award of maintenance to her and ought to have seen to some
relief being granted to her so as to save her from destitution. In xxx v. yyyy
Rai and Ors. , this Court has held that in exercise of power of
superintendence conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
on the High Court, the High Court does have power to make such
directions as the facts and circumstances of the case may warrant, may be,
by way of guiding the inferior Court or Tribunal as to the manner in which
it would proceed hence and the High Court has the jurisdiction also to pass
itself such a decision or direction as the inferior Court or Tribunal should
have made. The jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is to be
exercised sparingly and with care and caution, but is certainly one vesting
in the High Court and meant to be exercised in appropriate cases. Iv
convinced of the genuineness of the averments made by the petitioner and
if convinced that a deserted woman, repeatedly knocking at its doors, is on
the verge of destitution the High Court itself has jurisdiction to direct
suitable amount of maintenance being awarded and to secure compliance
with its directions, if the same relief the subordinate Court has failed to
grant or to enforce. May be that the High Court could have passed such
order on the next date of hearing. But the petitioner has approached this
Court probably impelled by impatience. It is not necessary to grant leave to
appeal against the order dated 29.10.2003 of the High Court. There is
nothing in the impugned order by which the petitioner may feel aggrieved.
Let the petitioner appear before the High Court on the next date of hearing
and seek appropriate interim and urgent relief from the High Court which
if deserving, we have no reason to assume why the High Court shall not
grant to the petitioner. The special leave petition be treated as disposed
of. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the High Court forthwith.
Sd/- (R.C. Lahoti, J.) Sd/- (Ashok Bhan, J.) Sd/- (Arun Kumar, J.) New Delhi;
March 29, 2004. The applicant moved an application along with the order
of the Supreme Court and requested that the matter be heard for grant of
maintenance. On this application the following order was passed: Having
regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the order of
Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 29.3.2004 the order of this Court dated
3.12.2002 to the extent that the Contempt application was disposed off is
recalled and for reasons given in my order dated 3.12.2003, the operation
of order of the Family Judge, Kanpur Nagar dated 5.8.2003 deciding and
dismissing Criminal Case No. 108/2003 under Section 125 Cr. P.C. is stayed.
Issue notice to Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav, Head Constable posted in district
Jalaun at Urai through Senior Superintendent of Police, District Jalaun.
Notices shall also be issued to Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Headquarters, Allahabad. Both the notices shall enclose a copy of this
order. During the pendency of this proceeding, Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav is
directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3000/- per month as interim maintenance to
the applicant Smt. Shail and Rs. 25,0007- towards interim cost of these
proceedings which have been drawn upto the Supreme Court. This amount
shall be deducted by S.S.P. Jalaun from the salary of Sri Manoj Kumar
Yadav to the extent that the deductions are not made beyond half of the
amount of salary including allowances drawn by him, per month and shall
be paid and remitted by S.S.P., Jalaun every month to Smt. Shail C/0 PPN
Girls Inter College Compound Pared, Kanpur Nagar (UP) by Bank Draft
prepared in her favour. Copy of the order may be given to the petitioner
appearing in person on payment of usual charges within 24 hours.
2. The SSP Jalaun complied with the order and started remitting the
amount of maintenance deduced out of the salary of Shri xxxx, to the
applicant. There were some defaults on which it was reported by the SSP
Jalaun that Shri xxxx has been suspended for his unauthorised absence
from duties and that the applicant was being paid from making deductions
from his suspension allowance.
3. Shri Manoj Kumar Yadav did not put in appearance in these
proceedings. He absented from duties and was suspended. Inspite of
deductions made from his suspension allowance, and having full
knowledge of these proceedings, for the reasons best known to him he
avoided to appear in the matter. It was found that the entire proceedings
were taken ex-parte against Manoj Kumar Yadav and that it was not
possible to decide the matter in his absence. In the circumstances firstly
bailable warrants were issued against him, which could not be served and
thus non-bailable warrants were issued on 24.5.2005 to procure his
attendance. Shri Amitabh Yash, Superintendent of Police, Jalaun at Orai
filed his affidavit through the Chief Standing Counsel II on 12.7.2005
stating that in compliance of the Court’s order Manoj Kumar Yadav was
arrested by the police and produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Jalaun, Urai, who had issued direction for sending him Jail and keeping him
in police custody. He was detained in the District Jail on 24.6.2005 and
shall be produced before the Court on 12.7.2005.
4. Shri Manoj Kumar Yadav entered appearance and applied for bail. He
was granted bail after giving undertaking that he will appear in the
proceedings on all subsequent dates. On the request of Shri Prem Prakash
Yadav, learned Counsel for Shri Manoj Kumar Yadav the original record of
the maintenance matter was summoned from the Family Court, Kanpur
Nagar. In the supplementary affidavit of Shri Ram Niwas Yadav, the
maternal uncle of Manoj Kumar Yadav and the rejoinder affidavit of Shri
Manoj Kumar Yadav filed on 12.7.2005 and 19.9.2005, he has denied the
allegations of rape, s*xual harassment and the fact that any marriage was
solemnized between him and the applicant. In para 9 of his rejoinder
affidavit he states that he is married to Smt. Pushpa Devi in 1996, who is
his legally wedded wife and also has a daughter aged about eight years
from the wedlock, and has relied upon a copy of the Parivar Register of
House No. 213 of Village Shobhavpur, Tehsil Dalmau, District Rai Bareily.
He further states that in the application dated 27.7.2002 filed by Shail in
the Court of the Family Judge, Kanpur it was pleaded that the deponent
should marry him otherwise the deponent should pay half his salary to
her. He has also relied upon his Counter Affidavit filed in Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 10156/2002 in which he has stated in paragraph 6 that Shri
Sone Lal father of the applicant Shail was a Class IV employee in a college
at Kanpur and had died in harness. Her mother is also a Class IV employee
in P.P.N. Girls Enter College, Kanpur. The applicant Shail was appointed as
Peon on compassionate ground in Zuhari Devi Girls Post Graduate College,
Canal Road, Kanpur and used to live in the compound of P.P.N. Girls Enter
College in Kanpur with her mother and brother. She used to behave in an
abnormal manner on which the residents of the compound made a
representation to the Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Nagar, Nagar.
5. The Principal of Zuhari Devi Girls Post Graduate College, Canal Road,
Kanpur also wrote a letter on 11.11.97 to S.S.P. Kanpur Nagar about her
abnormal behaviour. The college issued charge sheet against the petitioner
with several allegations and terminated her services on 30.4.98, after
which she was appointed as Home Guard in Zila Commandant, Kanpur
Nagar. There too her conduct was not found proper and her appointment
was cancelled by Zila Commandant, Home Guard, Kanpur Nagar vide order
dated 18.1.2000. The District Commandant, Home Guard, on her
application for re-enlisting sent his comments to the Regional
Commandant, Home Guard, Region Kanpur on 18.8.2000 stating that the
petitioner is undisciplined lady and is habitual of making false complaints.
6. With regard to the incident of s*xual harassment of rape dated
18.1.2002 at Lucknow it is stated by him in his affidavit in writ petition No.
10156/02 and annexed to the Supplementary Affidavit of Shri Ram Niwas
Yadav, the maternal uncle of Shri Manoj Kumar Yadav that he never
misbehaved with the petitioner nor reside in Apsara Hotel with her on
18.1.2002. He has relied upon the affidavit of Shri Rakesh Kumar, the
Manager of the hotel and Shri Ravi Sharma in which it was clearly stated
that there was no lady accompanying him on 18.1.2002, when he stayed in
the hotel. The FIR lodged by the applicant Shail was investigated and it was
found that the allegations leveled against the accused were false and
bogus. It was also reported that the applicant is habitual in making false
complaints. The final report dated 2.3.2002 in FIR No. 11/2002 in Crime
No. 86/2002 under Section 376/328 IPC P.S. Naka, Lucknow is annexed
with the copy of the counter affidavit.
 7. Shri P.P. Yadav, the learned Counsel for Shri Manoj Kumar Yadav alleges
that the applicant Shail has a doubtful character. She made false
complaints and accusations against the respondent Shri Manoj Kumar
Yadav in which a Final Report was submitted and was accepted by the
Magistrate. She is still employed in Zuhari Devi Girls Post Graduate
College, Canal Road, Kanpur. The entire proceedings taken by her are the
figment of her imagination. It is contended by him that she had earlier
filed a writ petition No. 10156/2002 with the prayer to issue a writ, order
or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 3
(Manoj Kumar Yadav) to marry her and to maintain her as his wife. The
Division Bench on 17.7.2002 after taking into account the Counter
Affidavit, filed by Shri Manoj Kumar Yadav found that the writ petition is
not the appropriate remedy as the allegations require a thorough
investigation by the competent authority, and for the absence of the
evidence and inquiry no conclusion could be drawn. The writ petition was
disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail such remedies as are
available to her under law.
8. It is contended by Shri Yadav that thereafter, the applicant filed case
No. 108/02 for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. alleging in
paragraph 1 and 2, that after the incident dated 181.2002 the applicant has
accepted the opposite party as her husband and has been performing her
duties as his wife. In the short application she alleged that the opposite
party has stopped paying her maintenance and has made her destitute
along with her mother. He is a Police Hawaldar drawing Rs. 8000/-, and
that she is entitled to half his salary as maintenance. The contempt
proceedings were dragged for a long period on account of absence of Shri
Manoj Kumar Yadav. If he had put in appearance after receiving summons,
this mater could have been disposed of long ago. This Court spent almost
one year to secure his attendance for which bailable and non-bailable
warrants were issued and that he was ultimately apprehended, arrested
and produced before the Court. Yadav abandoned his job as a Policemen,
to avoid these proceedings. The Court draws adverse inference from his
conduct and find that there is much to hide, and that that Shri Manoj
Kumar Yadav absented, both from service and from appearing in this
Court, for some oblique purposes.
9. Shri P.P. Yadav has relied upon Savita Ben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of
Gujarat and Ors. 1 (2005) DMC 503 SC) in which it was held that the
expression ‘wife’ as per Code of Criminal Procedure refers only the legally
married wife. In Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram
Adhav and Anr. it was held that expression ‘wife’ used in Section 125 of
the Code should be interpreted to mean only a legally wedded wife. The
word “wife’ is not defined in the Code except indicating in the Explanation
to Section 125 its inclusive character so as to cover a divorcee. The
expression must be given the meaning in which it is understood in law
applicable to the parties. The marriage of a woman in accordance with the
Hindu rites with a man having living spouse in a complete nullity in the eye
of law and she is therefore not entitled to the benefit of Section 125 of the
Code or the Hindu Marriage Act. The fact that the husband was treating
the applicant as his wife is inconsequential and there is no scope for
enlarging its scope by introducing any artificial definition to include
woman not lawfully married in the expression “wife’.
10. I have already found in the order dated 3.12.2003 that the Family
Court committed gross illegality in refusing maintenance in his order dated
5.8.2003. The husband had not put in appearance in the proceedings. The
findings of the Family Judge that there was no pleading as to how the
marriage was solemnized and there is no documentary proof of her
marriage, were not called for in exparte proceedings and that the Family
Judge, held without any material on record that she was employed and
thus she was not entitled to maintenance. Further the Family Judge was
fully aware of the direction of this Court dated 4.9.2002 and 17.1.2003, and
still did not decide the matter for a long period of time. It was only when
he received the summons in this contempt petition that he decided the
matter exparte but recorded findings against the applicant. The powers
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, on the legal position
explained by the Supreme Court in these very proceedings, are invoked to
grant relief to the petitioner. The order of the Family Judge, as such,
cannot be sustained and must be set aside.
11. I have examined the Final Report submitted by the Investigating
Officer in Crime No. 86/2002 under Section 376/328 IPC P.S. Naka,
Lucknow with regard to the allegation of rape by the complainant Shail
against Manoj Kumar Yadav, a serving Policemen at Kanpur. She made a
complaint, registered at Police Station Naka, Sadar, District Lucknow on
10.3.2002 that while she was going for some personal work to railway
station at Kanpur, Shri Manoj Kumar Yadav met her and persuaded her to
go to Lucknow where he made her stay at Apsara Hotel. He offered cold
drink to her in which he had put some intoxicating material and raped her
while she was unconscious. Instead of investigating the incident, it was
reported by the Investigating Officer that the complainant is a woman of
doubtful character. He stated in his final report that the complainant was
removed from service of Zuhari Devi Girls Post Graduate College, Canal
Road, Kanpur, and the Department of Home Guard. Her stay in Apsara
Hotel is not proved and that she has lodged the FIR as she had treated the
accused as her husband in her dreams.
12. The Final Report of the investigation carried out by SSI, shows that
instead of investigating the incident he led more emphasis, on the
character of the applicant and the fact that she was terminated from
service and was also removed as a Home Guard. The Investigating Officer
did not try to verify the incident in which a Police Officer was involved, and
tried to close the matter by making insinuations against the applicant. The
investigation as such was incomplete and was wholly illegal. In the
allegation of rape, the character of woman is hardly material. It is
unfortunate that the police in the State considers a woman of doubtful
character, to be an object of ridicule and draws adverse inferences against
her while investigating the complaint of rape. The entire approach, puts a
question mark on the competence and mentality of the Police Officers. It is
apparent that in order to save a fellow Policeman, the Sub-Inspector of
Police, tried to close the matter by making allegations against the
complainant. The Final Report and the order accepting the Final Report
also as such deserve to be set aside by this Court.
13. In the facts and the circumstances the contempt petition is disposed
of, confirming the observation made in the order dated 3.12.2003, setting
aside the order of the Family Court, Kanpur Nagar dated 5.8.2003 in case
No. 108/02, and the Final Report dated 2.3.2002 in Crime No. 86/02 under
Section 376/328 IPC Thana Naka, Lucknow and the order accepting the
Final Report.
14. The record of the Family Court shall be sent back without any delay.
The Family Court shall issue fresh notice to both the parties and decide the
matter in accordance with law. The Police is also directed to complete the
investigation of the case against Shri Manoj Kumar Yadav, as expeditiously
as possible. The investigation shall be carried out by the officer not below
the rank of Superintendent of Police.
15. Shri Manoj Kumar Yadav is discharged from this contempt
proceedings. His bail bonds are also discharged. It will, however, be open
to the Police Department to keep him under suspension. The applicant
Shall will continue to draw interim maintenance as directed earlier till the
conclusion of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Categories:
 Judgement, Judgement HC:
Contempt cannot be initiated when recovery proceedings can be started
in family court May 10, 2011 Fighting Legal Terror
Leave a comment CR.MA/5081/2011 1/1
ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 5081 of 2011 In CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No.
12747 of 2010 In SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 2469 of 2009
=========================================================
HANSABEN MAHENDRA SHAH – Applicant(s) Versus MAHENDRA
SOMABHAI SHAH – Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance : MR KL DAVE for Applicant(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 1,
=========================================================
CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL and HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
Date : 03/05/2011
ORAL ORDER
(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)
It is an admitted position that the petitioner has the remedy of taking out
appropriate proceedings before the Family Court, for recovery of the
amount. Under the circumstances, we are not inclined to initiate action
under the Contempt of Court Act, hence, dismissed.
(JAYANT PATEL, J.) (J.C.UPADHYAYA, J.) (binoy)
Top Categories:Judgement, Judgement PUNJAB AND HARYANA HC:
Maintenance in one case to be set off against another case May 4, 2011
Fighting Legal Terror
Leave a comment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR
NO.4813 OF 2009 (O&M)
 DECIDED ON : 25.08.2009
Raman Ahuja @ Banti …Petitioner versus Vandana …
Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
Present : Mr. Karan Vir Nanda, Advocate for the petitioner.
AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed against the award of
maintenance pendente lite of Rs.3,000/- per month. The only prayer made
by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is already
paying maintenance under Section 125 Cr.PC and Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and that the petitioner should not have
to pay maintenance on independent accounts. In fact what the learned
counsel for the petitioner is praying for is really the law. Learned counsel
further relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as
Sudeep Chaudhary versus Radha Chaudhary 1999 AIR (SC) 536.
Consequently, this petition is dismissed with the clarification that the
amount awarded by the impugned order would be set off against the
maintenance being paid by the petitioner to the respondent under other
proceedings. August 25, 2009 (TEWARI) sonia JUDGE
Categories:Judgement,
Judgement Kolkata High Court: 125 CrPC to be adjusted against HMA
maintenance May 4, 2011
Fighting Legal Terror
Leave a comment
03.04.09 C.O. No.3925 of 2008
Anutosh Datta Versus Manasi Datta @ Sona Mr. Jiban Ratan Chatterjee
Mr. T. N. Halder .
For the petitioner Mr. Sanat Chowdhury For the O.P.
This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by
the petitioner/plaintiff challenging the order dated 18th December, 2006
and order dated 30th August, 2008 passed by the learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, fifth Court at Alipore, 24-
Parganas (South), in Misc. Case No.19 of 2005 arising out of Mat. Suit
No.83 of 2004. It is necessary to mention relevant fact for disposing of the
present application. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the above Matrimonial
Suit before the learned District Judge at Alipore and subsequently the
same was transferred to the learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Court, 5th Court at Alipore.
2 During the pendency of the above matrimonial suit the opposite
party/defendant filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act for alimony Pendentilite vide Misc. Case No.19 of 2005.
Learned Additional District Judge passed the order on 18.12.2006 in Misc.
Case NO.19 of 2005 as ex parte and directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,500/- per
month to the petitioner and further Rs.2000/- per month for the minor
daughter of the petitioner towards alimony pendentilite and it is further
directed to the husband to pay sum of Rs.4,000/- in lump sum towards
cost. The petitioner husband filed another application under Section 151
C.P.C. with a prayer for vacating the said ex parte order dated 18.12.2006.
Learned Additional District Judge after hearing of both sides rejected the
said application on 30.8.2008. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied against the
order dated 18.12.2006 and 30.8.2008 the petitioner/husband filed the
present application for setting aside the orders. Mr. Jiban Ratan Chatterjee
learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner 3 pointed out that
the learned Court below was vacant since a long time i.e., from August,
2005 to 12.10.2006. On 23.11.2006 the learned Judge joined in the Court
and the said Misc. Case No.19 of 2005 was taken up for hearing but the
O.P./husband was absent and as such another date was fixed on
18.12.2006 and on that date the learned Judge after taking the evidence of
the petitioner/wife disposed of the case as an ex parte as the O.P. was
absent. The present petitioner has filed the application under Section 151
C.P.C. for vacating the said order and on 30.8.2008 the learned Judge
rejected the prayer of the petitioner after hearing of both sides. Learned
Advocate also pointed out that the opposite party/wife is receiving the
amount of maintenance as per order of the learned Magistrate under
Section 125 Cr. P. C. but the learned Judge without adjustment the said
amount passed the order for maintenance pendentilite till the disposal of
the Mat. Suit. That order is bad in law and relevant order dated 18.12.2006
is liable to be set aside.
4 In support of the contention Learned Advocate on behalf of the
petitioner has cited a case law reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court 536
(Sudeep Chaudhary v. Radha Chaudhary). Learned Advocate also pointed
out that there was the sufficient ground for allowing the application under
Section 151 C.P.C. but the Court did not show any liberal approach for
allowing the same and as such learned Court refused the prayer on
30.8.2008. In support of the contention learned Advocate has cited a case
law reported in AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1353 (Collector, Land Acquisition
Anantnag and another v. Mst. Katiji and others). Considering the above
aspects the present application may be allowed for setting aside the above
orders passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court.
Learned Advocate on behalf of the O.P. has pointed out that when the
order was passed by the learned Court as ex parte, the petitioner/husband
might approach to the Court for setting aside the said ex parte order under
5 Order 9 Rule 13 of the C. P. C. and in the present matter the
petitioner/husband did not approach before the learned Judge for setting
aside the same. As such there is no scope to interfere in the orders dated
18.12.2006 and 30.8.2008. The present application is liable to be
dismissed. In support of the contention learned Advocate cited a case law
reported in AIR 1964 Supreme Court 993 (Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar
and others.) Heard both sides. From the xerox copy of the relevant day to
day order sheets of the learned Court below filed on behalf of the
petitioner it is clear that the learned Judge, Fast Track, 5th Court at Alipore
was vacant. In the relevant order No.39 dated 23.11.2006 it states that
learned Judge took up the Misc. Case for hearing but the O.P. was absent
on that day and as such the learned Court fixed the date on 18.12.2006 as
ex parte and on 18.12.2006 the O.P. did not appear and as such the
learned Judge disposed of the Misc. Case No.19 of 2005 as ex parte after
taking the 6 evidence of the petitioner/wife and in the said order learned
Judge directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,500/- per month to the petitioner and
further Rs.2,000/- per month for the minor daughter of the petitioner
towards alimony pendentilite. In the said order there is no observation
regarding the adjustment of the amount awarded under Section 125 Cr. P.
C. towards the amount awarded in the matrimonial proceeding under
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In the written objection filed on
behalf of the opposite party/husband in Misc. Case No.19 of 2005, it is
clear in paragraph 10 that the interim maintenance of Rs. 1,200/- per
month was allowed. However, in the case Sudeep Chaudhury (supra) the
Apex Court observed “the amount awarded under Section 125 of the Cr. P.
C. for maintenance was adjustable against the amount awarded in the
matrimonial proceeding and was not to be given over and above the
same.” There is gross irregularity in the order dated 18.12.2006 passed by
the learned Judge, 7 Fast Track Court for not adjustment of the amount
awarded under Section 125 Cr. P. C. It is true that the petitioner/husband
filed an application under Section 151 C. P. C. and that was dismissed on
contest. The said application was filed with reference to a proceeding not
in the suit and as such there is no scope to interfere in the said application
as per provision order 9 Rule 13 of the C. P. C. However, the said
application was filed in a belated way. The Court should adopt liberal
approach to consider the matter. But the learned Judge failed to do the
same. Considering all aspects the orders dated 18.12.2006 and 30.8.2008
passed by the learned Additional District Judge Fast Track 5th Court at
Alipore in Misc. Case No.19 of 2005 have some irregularities. Orders dated
18.12.2006 and 30.8.2008 are set aside. Learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 5th Court at Alipore is requested to dispose of
the Misc. Case 19 of 2005 afresh after giving an opportunity for hearing of
both sides within two months from the date of receipt of the order.

8 The application is disposed of accordingly. There is no order as to costs.

C.O. No.3925 is disposed of accordingly.
Urgent xerox certified copy of the order be supplied to the party, if
applied for. (TAPAS KUMAR GIRI, J.)
Categories:Judgement, Judgement HC:
CrPC 125 maintenance to be adjusted against HMA May 4, 2011
Fighting Legal Terror
I (2001) DMC 6 Bench: S Mishra Sandhya Kumari vs State Of Bihar on
7/2/2000 JUDGMENT S.N. Mishra, J.
1. In this criminal revision application the petitioner has prayed for
setting aisde the order dated 9.8.1999 passed by the learned Magistrate
whereby he has rejected the prayer for maintenance in terms of Section
125, Cr.P.C. It appears that petitioner Sandhya Kumari has filed an
application for grant of maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. before the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur, which was registered as
Misc. Case No. 46 of 1999.
2. Shortly stated that case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was
married the opposite party No. 2 Manish Kumar on 21.5.1986 according to
Hindu customs and rituals at Samastipur. It is further alleged that father of
the petitioner invested a lot of money on the marriage of the petitioner by
giving clothes, jewellery, furniture, utensils, refrigerator, colour T.V., car
etc. and cash according to his capacity. The opposite party-husband is an
architect and is working in private sector. He made a demand of Rs. 4-5
lacs for starting business but the petitioner’s parents showed their inability
to fulfil his demand, as a result the petitioner is being tortured and
harassed for non-fulfilment of demand. Ultimately, it is alleged that the in-
laws have finally turned out the petitioner of her matrimonial house. In
spite of the several attempts made from the side of the petitioner’s family
in order to restore the conjugal life of the petitioner and the opposite
party all went in vain. It is further alleged that since the opposite party was
interested for re-marriage he filed a matrimonial suit for divorce. It is
alleged that the petitioner is unemployed and totally dependent on her
parents since 1991 whereas the opposite party is quantified Engineer
having substantial immovable property, out of which he is getting Rs.
25,000-30,000/- as per month income. The opposite party in order to get
remarried, has filed a petition for divorce on 31.1.1994 which was
registered as Matrimonial Case No. 2 of 1994 before the learned 2nd
Additional District Judge, Sitamarhi. Ultimately, the learned Judge by his
judgment and decree dated 23.8.1996 decreed the suit and directed to pay
a sum of Rs. 2,500/- per month by way of monthly allowance to the
petitioner. Against the said direction, the opposite party has filed an
appeal before this Court being F.A. No. 478 of 1996. Similarly, the
petitioner has also challenged the judgment and decree of the Court below
and, accordingly, filed an appeal before this Court being F. A. No. 429 of
1996. Both these First Appeals are pending before this Court for disposal.
During the pendency of the matrimonial suit, the learned Judge directed
the opposite party to pay maintenance pendente lite and cost of litigation
to the petitioner in terms of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act
retrospectively w.e.f. March 1994, by his order dated 97.1996. Against the
order directing to pay the maintenance, the opposite party has challenged
the order by filing Civil Revision No. 1292 of 1996 and by order dated
21.1.1996 the said order of ad interim maintenance was set aside. It is
alleged that since the petitioner is not getting a single farthing from the
opposite party in terms of the judgment and decree passed by the Court
below, she has filed application for maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C
for grant of maintenance as she has no source of income and totally
depends upon her parents. The learned Magistrate has refused to grant
maintenance mainly on two grounds;
firstly, that because of the decree of divorce passed by the Civil Court she
cannot be said to be the wife for grant of maintenance under Section 125,
Cr.P.C. and, secondly, having regard to the fact that she has really been
granted maintenance under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, she
cannot claim the maintenance under the provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
3. The reasons assigned by the learned Magistrate cannot be accepted for
the simple reason that the divorced wife is equally entitled to maintenance
in terms of Section 125, Cr.P.C. The Explanation appended to Section 125,
Cr.P.C. where from it appears that “wife” includes a woman who has been
divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from her husband and has not
remarried. The said Explanation appended to Section 125, Cr.P.C. reads
thus :
(a) "minor" means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian
Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875), is deemed not to have attained his
majority;
(b) "wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a
divorce from, her husband and has not remarried……" Admitted position is
that the petitioner has not remarried as yet.
4. The second reason assigned by the teamed Magistrates also seems to
be misconceived one in view of the fact that the scope of Section 125,
Cr.P.C. as well as Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act stand on different
footing. It is true that the maintenance granted under the Hindu Marriage
Act can be adjusted out of the amount granted under Section 125, Cr.P.C. I
am supported by a decision in the case of Sudeep Chaudhary v. Radha
Chaudhary, reported in AIR 1999 SC 536, wherein it has been held that
when the wife is granted interim alimony both under Section 24 of the
Hindu Marriage Act and under Section 125, Cr.P.C., in that event, the
maintenance amount granted under Section 125, Cr.P.C. is to be adjusted
against the amount awarded in matrimonial proceeding. Admittedly, not a
single farthing has been paid to the petitioner as yet in terms of the decree
passed by the Civil Court. In that view of the matter, the petitioner, being a
wife though divorced one, is still entitled to the maintenance in terms of
Section 125, Cr.P.C. However, the amount of maintenance allowed under
the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act is subject to adjustment of the
amount granted in terms of Section 125, Cr.P.C.
5. After having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and going
through the materials on record, the order dated 9.8.1999 passed by the
learned Magistrate is hereby, set aside. This application is, accordingly
allowed.
Categories: Judgement, Judgement SC: Amount awarded under 125 CrPC is
adjustable against the amount awarded in the matrimonial proceedings
May 4, 2011
Equivalent citations: AIR 1999 SC 536, 1999 CriLJ 466, JT 1998 (9) SC 473
Bench: S Bharucha, F Uddin Sudeep Chaudhary vs Radha Chaudhary on
31/1/1997 JUDGMENT S.P. Bharucha, J.
1. Special leave granted.
2. The respondent-wife has been served by substituted service but does
not appear.
 3. The appellant-husband and the respondent-wife are estranged. The
wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code
for maintenance which was awarded at the rate of Rs. 350/- p.m. with
effect from 3rd July, 1990, and was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 500/-
p.m.
4. In proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act the wife sought alimony.
It was granted at the rate of Rs. 600/- p.m. on 11th August, 1987, and the
amount, thereof was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 800/- p.m.
5. Since the husband failed to pay the amount of maintenance as
aforesaid, the wife started recovery proceedings. The husband contended
that the maintenance amounts should be adjusted against the interim
alimony and the Magistrate before whom the recovery proceedings were
pending upheld the contention. The High Court, in the order which is under
appeal, held that the Magistrate was in error in directing adjustment of the
maintenance amount awarded under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. against the
amount awarded under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
6.We are of the view that the High Court was in error. The amount
awarded under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for maintenance was adjustable
against the amount awarded in the matrimonial proceedings and was not
to be given over and above the same. In the absence of the wife, we are,
however not inclined to go into any detailed discussion of the law.
7. At the same time, we feel that the claims of the husband and the wife
are to be balanced. We, therefore, direct that the husband shall pay to the
wife towards maintenance (which now comprehends both the amount
awarded under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and the amount awarded in the
matrimonial proceedings) the sum of Rs. 1,000/- p.m. commencing from
3rd July, 1990. The arrears, if any, shall be paid within 8 weeks.
8. This order will be subject to such orders as may be passed at the stage
of final disposal of the matrimonial proceedings.
 9. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
10. No order as to costs.
Categories:Judgement, Judgement HC:
Wife refused to stay with Husband…CrPC 125 rejected May 3, 2011
Categories:Judgement HC: CrPC 125 & DV Act together are not Double
Jepordy but DV quashed as husband already got divorce April 29, 2011

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.7124

OF 2008 01-04-2011
A.Sreenivasa Rao and others The State of A.P., rep. by its Public
Prosecutor,High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another Counsel for the
Petitioners:
Sri D.Madhava Rao Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Public Prosecutor
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: M/s. K.Ananda Rao :
ORDER:
1. There is no representation for the 2nd respondent-wife. The petitioners
are Accused Nos.1 to 5 in D.V.A.No.18 of 2007 on the file of the III
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The 1st accused
is/was the husband of the 2nd respondent. Alleging that A-1 to A-5
committed matrimonial offences, the 2nd respondent/wife laid
D.V.A.No.18 of 2007.
2. As there is prior litigation between the parties, the 2nd respondent laid
M.C.No.175 of 2003 seeking for maintenance from the 1st petitioner
herein. She was indeed successful in obtaining an order from the Court
granting maintenance in her favour. It would appear that the order has
become final.
3. While so, the 2nd respondent laid C.C.No.226 of 2003 on the file of the
XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), Hyderabad.
She made allegations against the petitioner herein in C.C.No.226 of 2003
under Section 498-A and other matrimonial offences. The case had ended
in acquittal. The judgment was pronounced on 30.4.2007.
4. In the interregnum, the 1st petitioner/husband laid O.P.No.366 of 2004
on the file of the Family Court, Hyderabad seeking the dissolution of his
marriage with the 2nd respondent by divorce on the ground of cruelty on
the part of the wife. The learned Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad granted
divorce in favour of the petitioner through orders in O.P.No.366 of 2004 on
5.5.2006.

5. It may be noticed that D.V.A.No.18 of 2007 itself was filed after the 1st
petitioner obtained divorce from the 2nd respondent. Sri Ashish Samanth,
learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that laying of D.V.C.No.18
of 2007 is tantamount to double jeopardy as the petitioners were
acquitted on identical allegations in C.C.No.226 of 2003 and that the
petitioners cannot be proceeded against again in D.V.A.No.18 of 2007. I do
not agree with this contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner for
the reason that the protection envisaged by the Article 20(2) of the Indian
Constitution as well as by Section 300 Cr.P.C., which is a protection against
the double jeopardy would apply if both the proceedings are criminal in
nature, whereas the proceedings in D.V.A.No.18 of 2007 cannot be
considered to be criminal proceedings. Like proceedings under Section 125
Cr.P.C., perhaps the proceedings under Domestic Violence Act are quasi-
criminal proceedings. However, they are not criminal proceedings as such
to fall within the mischief of Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution or
under Section 300 Cr.P.C.

6. At the same time, by the time the D.V.A.No.18 of 2007 was laid in 2007,
the marriage between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent already
stood dissolved by the Family Court, Hyderabad through a decree in
O.P.No.366 of 2004. When there was no jural relationship of man and his
wife between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent by the date of
filing of D.V.A.No.18 of 2007, the case in D.V.A.No.18 of 2007 prima-facie is
not maintainable. Added to it, the 2nd respondent is silent as to the dates
when the alleged violations under the Domestic Violence Act have
occurred. Viewed in this angle, the 2nd respondent is not entitled to
proceed against the petitioner under the provisions of the Domestic
Violence Act.
7. I wholly agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the
petitioners that the proceedings in D.V.A.No.18 of 2007 are not
maintainable in view of the divorce between the 1st petitioner and the
2nd respondent having been granted by a competent Civil Court.
Proceedings against the petitioners herein are quashed in D.V.A.No.18 of
2007 on the file of the III
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
Categories:
DV Judgements, Judgement HC:
maintenance of 1/5th of salary is reasonable April 26, 2011
Judgement HC on confusion due to simultaneous proceeings in DV Act and
CrPC 125 April 14, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc.
Application No. 593 of 2009 Akhilesh Kumar Applicant. Versus Smt. Sarita
Respondent. Mr. Prashant Khanna,
Advocate holding brief of Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Pawan Mishra, Advocate for the applicant / respondent.
Date of Order: 29.03.2011
BARIN GHOSH, CHIEF JUSTICE Clarification Application No. 278 of 2011
The words, “If any amount is paid under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure
Code by the petitioner to the respondent, the same shall be adjusted
against the amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month directed to be paid by this
Court" is causing the confusion. In fact, a proceeding was initiated under
Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In that proceeding, there was
a direction to pay maintenance. Such maintenance was paid for sometime.
Subsequent there to, that proceeding was compromised. When no order
was passed for payment of maintenance, in as much as the husband and
the wife represented to the Court that they will hence forth live together.
Subsequent thereto, wife was compelled to initiate a proceeding under the
provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
In that, the Magistrate awarded maintenance of Rs. 7,000/-. The Sessions
Judge, at the instance of the husband, refused to interfere. This Court, as
an interim measure, reduced the quantum of such maintenance from Rs.
7,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. While doing so, the above observation was made.
The said observation was made only for the purpose of ensuring that wife
does not get anything more than Rs. 5,000/- per month. The Court did not
permit the husband to adjust amount paid on earlier occasions in a closed
proceedings with the amount directed to be paid by the Court by its order
dated 14th June, 2010.
2. With the above clarification, the application made therefor is disposed
of. (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 29.03.2011 Amit
Categories:DV Judgements, Judgement Children need to maintain their
father :
Gujrat HC March 21, 2011
CR.RA/759/2009 4/4 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL REVISION
APPLICATION No. 759 of 2009
For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
=================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment
?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made there
under ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
================================================= HASMUKHBHAI
NARANBHAI VIRAMIYA & 1 – Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 –
Respondent(s) =================================================
Appearance : MR PRADEEP PATEL for Applicant(s) : 1 – 2. PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) :
1, RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) :
2, MR JL HAJARE for Respondent(s) : 2,
================================================= CORAM :
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date : 09/02/2011
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Petitioners are sons of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 father had
filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.585 of 2008 before the Family
Court, Rajkot seeking maintenance from his sons contending that in old
age he has no independent source of income and he is unable to maintain
himself.
2. Learned Judge of Family Court, Rajkot by impugned order dated
9.9.2010 allowed the application partly and directed both the sons to pay
Rs.600/- each per month to the father. He thus received a total of
Rs.1200/- by way of maintenance from two sons.
3. In the present case, the petitioners have opposed the order of
maintenance on various grounds, namely, that the father had deserted the
family many years back and has started leaving with another lady without
any valid marriage. From such cohabitation he also has one son and one
daughter against whom no claim is made. It is also the case of the
petitioners that the petitioners are willing to look after the father if he
resides with them. The case of the petitioners further is that they do not
have sufficient means to pay maintenance to the father.
4. Counsel for the petitioners drew my attention to the evidence on record
to point out that the cohabitation of the father with another lady and this
lady giving birth to two children out of such cohabitation are admitted by
him. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the father had not
supported the family yet sold away certain immovable properties from
which he has received considerable amount. He also instituted several
proceedings seeking eviction of the petitioners from the residential
premises occupied by them.
5. Counsel for the respondent No.2 was absent on numerous occasions, I,
therefore, had no benefit of his arguments.
6. So far as the contention that the father has sold certain immovable
properties and raised considerable amount which could be source for his
sustenance is concerned, admittedly there is no evidence on record in this
regard. Such oral averments, raised for the first time in the High Court,
cannot be accepted.
7. In so far liability of the petitioners to maintain their father, who has no
independent source of income, flows clearly from sub-Section(1) of Section
125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It reads as follows:- "Section 125.
Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents
(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain-
(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or
(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not,
unable to maintain itself, or
(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child ( not being married daughter) who
has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or
mental, abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or
(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a
Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal,
order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his
wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate, as such
magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate
may from time to time direct: xxx xxx xxx
8. In absence of anything on record to suggest that the father had any
source of income whatsoever, the Family Court rightly believed that he
was unable to maintain himself, particularly, looking to his age of about 72
years.
9. It has also come on record that the father is not only aged but he is also
infirm and suffers from sickness time and again.
10. Regarding ability of the petitioners to pay maintenance, learned Judge
though discarded the averment of the father that the sons are earning
Rs.12,000/- to 20,000/- per month, on the basis of evidence on record,
learned Judge believed that the petitioner No.1 would be earning
approximately Rs.3000/- per month and petitioner No.2 Rs.3,500/- per
month. Considering their family liabilities, he asked them to pay Rs. 600/-
each to the father. With this assessment or the ultimate direction, I find no
infirmity whatsoever.
11. It is true that the father had admitted that he had entered into an
agreement of friendship with one lady in the year 1990 and from such
cohabitation two children were also born. However, the petitioners are
currently stated to be aged 52 years and 48 years respectively. In the year
1990, therefore, they were fully grown up in the age group of 28 and 22
respectively. It, therefore, cannot be stated that the father abandoned
them in their infancy. Further the fact that the father has not claimed any
maintenance from other son, can hardly be a ground to absolve these
petitioners from their responsibility to look after their father in his old age.
12. Under the circumstances, the petition is dismissed. It is, however,
clarified that if the petitioners have any evidence to show that the father,
by virtue of sale of properties, has received considerable amount, which
could be his source of income, it would be open for them to file application
under Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Family Court.
13. With above observations, petition is dismissed.
Interim relief stands vacated. Rule discharged.
(Akil Kureshi, J. ) sudhir Top Categories:
Judgement HC: DNA test of husband rejected in CrPC 125 case March 21,
2011
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR M.Cr.C. No. 5273/2010
Lallu Lal Patel -Vs- Smt.Anar Kali @ Tannu Bai Yadav and another PRESENT
: Hon. M.A.Siddiqui,J. Shri Ashok Lalwani , Adv. for petitioner. Shri Paritosh
Trivedi, Adv.for respondents.
ORDER RESERVED ON 14/02/2011.
ORDER PASSED ON 21/02/2011.
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner
to invoke the extra ordinary powers of this Court to order for DNA test of
respondent no.2 Sanju Yadav @ Munna Lal Yadav in proceeding under
Section 125 Cr.P.C.pending before JMFC, Mandla.

(2) In brief, the petition is that respondent no.1 is not the wife of
petitioner and respondent no.2 is not the legitimate/illegitimate son of
petitioner. Proceeding for maintenance of respondent no.2 is pending
before JMFC, Mandla where n application for DNA test of respondent no.2
has been filed. On 19.1.10 the application for DNA test has been rejected
by JMFC, Mandla and on revision by Cri.Revision No.21/10, on 19.4.10,
request for DNA test has been refused. It is alleged that it is necessary not -
2- only for deciding the case, but also to wash off the stigma of illegitimate
child which respondent no.2 has to carry with him through out his life.
Respondent has objected the test. Aggrieved by the orders, this petition
has been filed by the petitioner.

(3) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is not the
husband of respondent no.1 and he got declaration through a civil suit and
she wrongly filed a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. not for herself but for
her son Sanju. Petitioner has got acquittal from the criminal case of rape in
ST No. 153/98 on 22nd April,1999. He got the decree from civil suit that he
is not the husband of respondent no.1. Petitioner has rightly moved
application for DNA test of the boy Sanju to ascertain the paternity, but
same has been wrongly refused by the two Courts below. He prays that
direction to do the DNA test of the boy Sanju may be given.
(4) Respondents have opposed the request and supported both the orders
of the Courts below on the ground that both are reasoned orders and it
has been rightly discussed that it is the duty of the petitioner to prove his
own case and he cannot make the Court as a tool to collect the evidence
and DNA test is a test which cannot be ordered against the Will of the
person. -3-
(5) Learned counsel for petitioner submitted the case law of Kerala High
Court in Sajeera vs. P.K.Salim 2000 Cri.L.J.1208 which has also been relied
on by the trial Court in which it has been held that under Section 112 of
Evidence Act, for evidence of legitimacy and paternity of child, no one can
be compelled to undergo blood test. Blood test should be conducted only
with the consent of the person. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed
reliance on H.M.Prakash alias Dali vs.State of Karnataka 2004
(3) KarLJ 584 which is based on section 53 of the Cr.P.C. and which is about
direction to the police officer and it has no relevancy with the case in hand.
In C.Rajaram vs. Jothi and another Crl.O.P.No. 35499 of 2007 order of DNA
test was given as lady gave birth to a child before nine months of the
marriage. So this authority is also of no relevance.
(6) Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of Apex
Court in Buridi Vanajakshmi vs. Buridi Venkata Satya Varaha Prasad
Gangadhar Rao & Anr. AIR 2010 AP 172 wherein it has been held that
under Hindu Marriage Act for the dispute as to paternity of child, DNA test
could be ordered by the High Court under its inherent powers, but against
it is the authority of Apex Court Goutam Kundu vs. State of West Bengal -4-
AIR 1993 SC 2295 wherein it has been held that nobody can be compelled
to give sample of blood for analysis. Almost similar view has been
reiterated in Smt. Selvi & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka AIR 2010 SC 1974
wherein it has been held that for Narco analysis consent is a must.
(7) In Banarsi Dass vs. Teeku Dutta (Mrs.) And Another (2005) 4 SCC 449 it
has been held that under Section 112 and 4 of Evidence Act, the
conclusiveness of presumption under S.112 cannot be rebutted by DNA
test. The proof of non-access between the parties to marriage during the
relevant period is the only way to rebut that presumption and DNA test is
not to be directed as a matter of routine, it is to be directed only in
deserving cases.
(8) So, looking to the above circumstances of the case, I find no ground to
invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under S.482 Cr.P.C.
Petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. (M.A.Siddiqui) JUDGE
/02/2011. Jk.
Categories:Judgement HC:
Wife give birth within 5 month of marriage:
Still maintenance allowed February 26, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KALIDAS MUKHERJEE C.R.R. NO. 1844
OF 2003
Bhopal Majee Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr..
For the Petitioner: Madhusudan Mondal For the O.P. No. 2: Mr. Heard On :
8.4.2010 & 22.6.2010. Judgment on: 30.6.2010. Kalidas Mukherjee, J. :

1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

assailing the order dated 19.2.2003 passed by learned Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court (4th), Raghunathpur, Purulia in Criminal
Revision No. 15 of 2001 whereby and whereunder the order dated
21.1.2001 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate in Misc. Case No. 23 of
1993 was affirmed. The learned Magistrate directed the O.P./husband to
make payment of maintenance allowance @ Rs.350/- per month to the
wife and @ Rs.250/- per month for her son from the date of the order. 2
2. The case of the petitioner in the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is
that the applicant is the legally married wife of the O.P. Bhopal Majee and
the marriage was solemnized on 20th Ashar, 1393 B.S. After marriage
petitioner used to live with the O.P. as husband and wife and gave birth to
a son out of their lawful wedlock. The son is aged about six years at the
time of filing of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In the matrimonial
home the O.P. began to ill treat with the petitioner and he also assaulted
her very often and ultimately drove her out from the matrimonial home.
The petitioner/wife came with her minor son to her paternal house. The
O.P. did not take any information of the applicant and her minor son. The
O.P. has sufficient means to pay maintenance. The O.P. is an able bodied
person having 40 bighas of landed property from which he earns 15,000/-
per year. Besides the O.P. is a Railway employee working at Garbeta under
Southern Railway as class IV staff.
3. The O.P./husband filed written objection before the learned Magistrate
contending, inter alia, that there was marriage between the parties on
20th Ashar, 1393 B.S. but the petitioner gave birth to a male child within
four months twenty days from the date of marriage. It has been contended
by the O.P./husband that the petitioner as well as her father fraudulently
concealed and suppressed the fact of pregnancy of the petitioner on the
date of marriage. It is alleged by the O.P. that he had no access to and/or
even acquaintance with her prior to the marriage 3 and the petitioner
became pregnant by someone excepting to the O.P. After the delivery of
the child the petitioner’s father came and took back his daughter along
with the new born baby. The petitioner and her father promised and
assured at that time that they would have no claim on the basis of the
marriage between the parties. It has been alleged that because of
suppression of material, the marriage was void and the O.P./husband filed
a suit bearing T.S. No. 69 of 1993 against the petitioner for a declaration
that there was no legal relationship of husband and wife between the
parties and the petitioner was not the legally married wife of the O.P. The
husband preferred a Misc. Appeal bearing No. 20 of 1993 before the
learned District Judge, Purulia. The O.P./husband has contended that the
petitioner/wife is not entitled to get any maintenance allowance.
4. The learned Magistrate allowed the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
holding that in T.S. No. 69 of 1993 it was held that the petitioner was made
pregnant by the O.P./husband and the marriage between the parties was
legal, valid and subsisting. The learned Magistrate further held that the
finding of the Civil Court was binding upon the Criminal Court and there
was no scope for fresh adjudication on that point. The learned Magistrate
accordingly held that the marriage between the parties was legal, valid
and subsisting and the son born to the womb of the petitioner was by the
loins of the O.P. The learned Magistrate further held that the O.P. by
challenging the legality and validity of the 4 marriage and in course of
challenge raised doubt about the chastity of the petitioner and denied the
paternity of the child which was, by itself, sufficient ground for separate
living by the petitioner. The learned Magistrate held that the O.P. did not
say about his monthly salary though it was within his special knowledge. It
was held that the O.P. being an employee in the Railway must have
sufficient means to pay maintenance. The learned Magistrate further held
that the petitioner having no income to maintain herself and her child, was
entitled to get maintenance.
5. The O.P./husband preferred a Criminal Revision bearing No. 15 of 2001
before the learned Additional District Judge who relying on the judgment
in T.S. No. 69 of 1993 held that the marriage between the parties was
legal, valid, subsisting and the petitioner was made pregnant by the
O.P./husband. It is also found from the findings of the learned Judge that
the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit was affirmed in Title Appeal
No. 39 of 1996. The learned Judge further observed that without going for
DNA test, the Court can take into account the accessibility of the parties at
the material point of time when the child came to the womb of the wife.
The learned Judge dismissed the Criminal Revision and affirmed the order
passed by the learned Magistrate.
6. In this application the leaned Counsel for the petitioner/husband made
submission in part on 8.4.2010, but, subsequently when the case was 5
taken up for further hearing the learned Counsel did not appear and the
argument of the learned Counsel of the O.P./wife was heard.
7. The learned Counsel for the O.P. submits that the marriage between the
parties is admitted and there is no ground to interfere with the findings of
the learned Additional District Judge. The learned Counsel submits that the
wife subsequently filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for
enhancement of the maintenance allowance which was allowed on
consent and the maintenance was raised to Rs.1,300/- per month for
petitioner and her child. The learned Counsel for the O.P. herein has
referred to the decision reported in (2003)6 SCC 1993 [Amina Vs. Hassn
Koya] para 4. It has been held by the Apex Court in para 4 as follows:- ” It is
very difficult to believe that a woman who is five months’ pregnant will be
able to conceal the pregnancy from the husband. Such an advanced stage
of pregnancy cannot be concealed as the pregnancy starts showing by that
time. In any case the pregnancy cannot be concealed from the husband. A
husband will at least know for sure that the wife is pregnant specially
when the pregnancy is five months’ old. Therefore, we cannot accept that
the respondent did not know at the time of marriage that the appellant
was already pregnant. If this fact was known to the respondent, the
marriage cannot be said to be illegal or void."
8. It appears from the impugned order that there was a finding of the Civil
Court holding that the marriage between the parties was legal, valid and
subsisting and that the petitioner/wife became pregnant by the 6
O.P./husband. In the instant case, the marriage is admitted and the only
objection of the O.P./husband is the paternity of the child. In the decision
cited above it has been held that the plea of the husband that he was not
aware of the pregnancy of the wife, was not accepted. Moreover, from the
order dated 14.9.2009 passed in Misc. Case No. 21 of 2008 (Kalabati Majee
Vs. Bhupal Majee) in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,
Raghunathpur it appears that the maintenance allowance was enhanced
under Section 127 Cr.P.C. to Rs.1,300/- per month on consent of the
parties. It appears that learned Court below discussed all the points and
the learned Judge rightly rejected the Revisional Application. There is no
ground to interfere with the findings of the learned Judge.
9. In the result the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India fails and the same is dismissed.
10. Let a copy of this order be sent down to the learned Court below
immediately.
11. Urgent Photostat certified copy, if applied for, be handed over to the
parties as early as possible. (Kalidas Mukherjee, J. ) Categories:Judgement
Wife’s maintenance rejected by FC but HC awards 1 lakh as permanent
alimony February 26, 2011
MISC. APPEAL No.215 OF 2010 1-SANTOSH KUMAR SINHA S/O SRI SURESH
LAL R/O VILL.- DAYAL CHHAPRA, P.S.- CHARPOKHARI, DISTT.- BHOJPUR —–
Petitioner-Appellant Versus
1-MADHUBALA SINHA D/O SHYAM KISHORE PRASAD R/O VILL.-
RATANPUR, P.S.- ARRAH MUFFASIL, DISTT.- BHOJPUR —–Opposite Party-
Respondent ———– PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA THE
HON’BLE MR.
JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN
Navin Sinha & The appellant was married to the respondent on Jxx, J.J.
12.6.1991. Matrimonial acrimony led to the institution of Charpokhari P.S.
Case No. 68 of 1992, under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the father of the respondent
against the appellant and his family members. The accused were taken
into custody. They were subsequently released on bail. The matter is then
stated to have been compromised. Thereafter the respondent is alleged to
have sent a legal notice making certain allegations and demanding Rs.
250/- per month which was denied by the appellant stating that the
respondent was leading an adulterous life. The appellant then filed
Matrimonial Case No. 02 of 1993, from which the present 2 appeal arises.
The Family Court unsuccessfully attempted reconciliation on more than
one occasion. The respondent expressed her willingness to go back to the
matrimonial home. The appellant on account of custody, consequent to
the criminal prosecution denied restoration of matrimonial harmony. The
respondent in the matrimonial case filed a counter claim for restitution of
conjugal rights. The respondent also filed Title Suit No. 103 of 1993 for
getting monthly allowance and for the return of her matrimonial
properties, ornaments, other articles etc. In the matrimonial suit the
appellant alleged cruelty against the respondent social, mental and
physical. The respondent denied the allegations alleging bad behaviour on
part of the appellant sought to be justified by institution of Charpokhari
P.S. Case No. 68 of 1992 by her. The Family Court noticed that during her
evidence the respondent sought to suppress the filing of Title Suit No. 103
of 1993 by her. It appears from the judgment under appeal that the suit
has also been dismissed. The Family Court came to the conclusion that
there was an irretrievable break down of the marriage since the parties
had not been residing together for nearly 17 years, opining that it may be
cruelty to compel them to live together. While granting divorce it granted
permanent alimony of Rs. 3,00000/- (three lakhs) 3 to the respondent.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the amount of
permanent alimony awarded is fanciful and he does not have the capacity
to pay the same. He is a licensed deed writer in the Civil Court at Ara in the
District of Bhojpur and has no source of income. Strong reliance was
sought to be placed on the judgment and decree in Title Suit No. 103 of
1993 at paragraph-25 of the same. Learned counsel for the respondent
reiterated the submission for willingness to revive matrimonial harmony.
The judgment in Title Suit No. 103 of 1993 is acknowledged to have
attained finality not having been questioned in appeal. We find no error in
the judgment under appeal on merits in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case to the extent that it grants divorce and rejects
the counter claim for restitution of conjugal rights. Matrimonial relations
are based on mutual trust and belief in each other. Once the trust and
belief collapses and more than reasonable time elapses before efforts
could be made to restore the faith and trust, an irretrievable situation is
created. Perhaps the English adage that distance makes the heart grow
fonder takes effect in the reverse direction. On the issue of the quantum of
permanent alimony awarded, considering the submission of both sides as
also the judgment in Title Suit No. 103 of 1993, we are 4 satisfied that the
amount of permanent alimony awarded is excess. The respondent has not
brought any materials before us to satisfy of the economic status or
financial capacity of the appellant. On the contrary, the appellant has a
judicial finding in his favour. At this stage, learned counsel for the
respondent submitted that she would be satisfied, if at least a permanent
alimony Rs. 1,50,000/- is awarded to her and the judgment under appeal
may be modified to that extent. Prima facie we were inclined to accept the
submission of the respondent as reasonable. The appellant however
reiterated his inability to pay relying upon the judgment in Title Suit No.
103 of 1993. In absence of any cogent material before us placed by the
respondent to counter the findings given in the Title Suit filed by her, but
at the same time keeping her interest in mind, the case of the appellant
himself that he is a deed writer and that his father does possess joint
family property also, we consider it proper to modify the amount of
permanent alimony to make it reasonable which the appellant shall be
able to pay. The fact that he may encounter difficulty in payment does not
impress us at it is his bounden duty in law to provide for his separated wife
unless the law exempts him from that responsibility. Being an able bodied
male it is for him to find the resources to pay permanent alimony to his 5
wife. We therefore modify the amount of permanent alimony Rs.
3,00000/- to Rs. 1,00000/- payable in two equal installments. We further
direct that the first installment of the alimony of Rs. 50,000/- shall be paid
to the respondent within a period of one month. The balance amount of
Rs. 50,000/- shall be paid after an interval of one month from the date of
payment of first installment of Rs. 50,000/-. The appeal is disposed off
with the aforesaid modification in the quantum of permanent alimony. (
Nxxxx) (Jxxxx) Patna High Court, Dated 14th July, 2010
Categories:Judgement HC:
Duty of the husband to maintain wife first, then only brother, sister and
mother February 26, 2011
CR.RA/587/2009 2/2 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT
AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 587 of 2009
=========================================================
MOHD.IRFAN USMANGANI SHEIKH – Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF
GUJARAT & 1 – Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance : MR PRATIK B BAROT for Applicant(s) : 1, MS ML SHAH, APP
for Respondent(s) : 1, MR MM TIRMIZI for Respondent(s) : 2,
=========================================================
CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date : 19/07/2010
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner is husband of respondent no.2. He has challenged an order
dated 31.3.2009 passed by the Family Court, Ahmedabad directing to pay
maintenance of Rs. 1500/-per month to wife. Counsel for the petitioner
submitted that amount of maintenance fixed is excessive. That the
cohabitation out of the marriage lasted for less than five months.
Petitioner is not able to earn enough to support wife and other family
members which include his brother, sister and mother. From the perusal of
the judgement under consideration, however, I find that the petitioner is
stated to be doing stitching work. He is residing in the city of Ahmedabad.
He is stated to be about 23 years of age. As an able bodied person and
being a skilled worker, it cannot be believed that petitioner does not earn
anything at all. Brother of the petitioner is stated to be about 26 years of
age. If the petitioner was keen to look after his brother, it was his first duty
to maintain his wife. Considering all these aspects of the matter, in my
opinion, order passed by the Family Court does not suffer from any
infirmity. Petition is therefore, dismissed. However, if the petitioner pays
arrears in six equal monthly installments, starting from 10.8.2010, there
shall be no coercive recovery against him, provided he continues to
deposit prospective monthly maintenance. However, in case of any
violation of above conditions, it would be open for the Family Court to
proceed further with the recovery proceedings. (Akil Kureshi,J.)
Categories:Judgement HC:
4200 PM maintenance on income of 15000 PM (assessed income by HC)
SCR.A/1627/2010 3/3 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT
AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1627 of 2010
=========================================================
PARESHBHAI ARVINDBHAI PATEL – Applicant(s) Versus REKHABEN
BABUBHAI PATEL & 2 – Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance : MR PRADIP D BHATE for Applicant(s) : 1, None for
Respondent(s) : 1 – 2. MS CHETNA SHAH ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 3, CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date
: 17/09/2010 ORAL ORDER Petitioner is husband of the respondent No.1
and father of the minor respondent No.2. He is required to pay monthly
maintenance of Rs.2200/- to his wife and Rs.2000/- to his minor son by
order dated 30th November 2009 passed by the learned Magistrate,
Dahod. His revision application against the said order came to be
dismissed by the Sessions Court vide order dated 27 July 2010. He has,
therefore, filed the present petition. Counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the Courts below have wrongly assessed income of the petitioner
going against the documents on record. He submitted that amount of
maintenance is excessive and calls for interference. From the orders under
challenge and in particular one passed by the learned Magistrate, it clearly
emerges that the petitioner is only son of his father. His mother is also
passed away. Father has retired from Railways Department which is a
pensionable service. Sister of the petitioner is married in USA and settled
there. His father has been frequently visiting her in USA. He has also in
past traveled to London for some social reasons. It further emerges that
the petitioner in his cross examination admitted that he is owner of one
residential house which is in his exclusive name. Admittedly the father of
the petitioner is also co-owner of piece of agricultural land. Averments of
the wife before the Courts below was that the husband is doing electrical
work since he has done technical course in this field and has two shops
from where he operates. Husband, however, has produced certificate of
Mamlatdar suggesting that his yearly income is only Rs.20,000/-. Two
courts below have assessed income of the petitioner much higher on the
basis of the evidence, some of which, I have recorded here in above. These
are purely factual findings. I have no reason to take different view though
version of the wife is that he is earning Rs.50,000/- per month was
discarded by the Courts. However, the Courts below believed that the
petitioner is able bodied person and has been involved in the electrical
work, would be earning about Rs.15,000/- per month. Other family
circumstances and living style lead by the family convince me not to
interfere with the impugned orders. Petition is, therefore, not entertained
and stands dismissed accordingly. ( XXXX )
Perjury
please guide me about filing perjury against my wife who has made false
statements in family court indore .' where the perjury can be filed
1) at family court indore
2) CJM Indore
3) session court indore 4 gujarat where I stay she has said that she is not
working and i have certified relevant proof that she is employed . She
claims that she has not claimed any maintence from family court which I
had deposited lthough I had deposited the amount . Under RTI the court
has not replied till date 20 days have passed .
resp madam.
I got married in dec 2004 . m wife was working in a school at indore.
before marraige she said that she will leave her job but later on she
resisted. She resided with me at baroda for 18 days . she asked me to come
down to indore . she was hardly earning 3000/- in 2004. I was employed in
govt job/ in 2005 i served her a legal notice to come as her uncles were
threatening us with 498 A . Instead of approaching for approachment she
approached family court with Sec 125 and served the summons in my
office although in her application my residential address ws written. Being
a whistle blower who has exposed corruption in the deptt my Head of
Office opened the summons and served the same through vig files and
started series of fictitious inquiries against me in office . They kept copies
of application in vig files and on the basis of that transfered me to
outstation . Meanwhile I proved that she is working with her bank
statements . But the FC ordered an mainetenance of RS 2000/- on the basis
of my status as Govt servant. Citing a High Court citation of Bhopal I tried
to contest this in High Court but could not succeed. I deposited 12 months
and later on could not deposit the amount sicne my services were
terminated by levelling various charges including the one that I did not
joined duties. I proved through RTI that my transfer was wrong but got late
in approaching CAT , before that i was removed . Now again she filed case
under sec 24 and section 13 1 for maintencace hiding my earlier decision of
giving RS 2000/ to her on the basis of my status. Accordingly I informed
family court that I have lost the job Under RTI I have proofthat she is
working since 1999 and getting good salary. Twive in year 2006 and 2010
she has lied that she is housewife . earlier in 2006 the court overlooked the
perjury . WHenever I go to appear in person the attitude of clerks as well
as the judge is not a welcome one and one can make out that i am being
harassed. I want to teach my wife a leson as she has taken my job ,
defamed me in society and is now levelling adultery charges on me with an
office colleague. I wish to file perjury as she cannot file 498A as she left me
from indore and not from gujarat . last stay was at indore . now the time
lap also of 5 years so her lawyers always threaten me in court and instigate
me as I attend the court in person as i do have little knowledge of law .
please guide as a female can guide better than anybody else
1. Remove miss-conception here in a "gender neutral" public patform
that" as a female one can guide better" This platform is a interactive
platform for common people with Ld. professionals and I am quoting this
with highest regards to referring to Ms. Rakhi ji here.
2. Perjury is filed before the same court where it has taken place. After
filing perjury a Memo is filed to take up perjury matter first before
deciding any other issues. Even after Memo not taken up by same Court
and rest matters procees then one should Appeal for it either before
Sessions Courts or HC. The three basic ingredients of perjury needs to be
satisfied before an inquiry may commence and same Court then says
expedient in the interets of justice file marked to initiate perjury against
accused in the interest of justice. Evidnece and witness cross of them
needs a carefull presentation in perjury matters especially in cases of
matrimonial perjury for which not many matrimonial perjury cases live till
date in any of the courts.
3. Since there are too many procedural laccunas you may have commited
since being pleading as party in person I suggest taking help of Ld.
members from database to set the wheel of perjury in motion or study
more Law on subject matter you will succeed.
4. Your case is similar to famous D HC perjury case in re. Dhondhiyal Vs
Veena by Dr. Muralidhar and parallel to Dr. Jogeshwar's reinstatement in a
CAT tribunal case. Dhan's case is on S. 125 CrPC perjury committed by wife
similar to your wife where he succeeded in setting up perjury wheel in
motion and now his wife has filled SLP before Hon'ble SC wherein Hon'ble
SC is trying for reconcilation. Dr. Jor's case is one of those rare 16 - 19 years
CAT struggle / battle case where from being in top position in Govt.
services overnight he was thrown on streets full of poverty and no salary
and a minor son in arms which again was decided in his favour by mr
Justice Dr. Mar's bench and prime facie your after narration (seond reply
mail) and effects on your personal life and liberty described above have all
the common features from above two cases I referred here which you
should study and gain knowledge in practice. I wish you all the best and be
carefull on matrimonial perjury (first they laugh then they side you is what
I mean here when you refer to court staff non cooperation) and know how
and when and where it can be effectively moved and create a matrimonial
precedent.
thank yu sir for your guidance and citation accordingly i will be proceding
and informing ur goodself for future guidance and advice . Kindly suggest
me good lawyer at indore
Defamation case against the witness and wife family members
Dear Experts, I would like to see your advise on filing the the defamation
case against my wife and his family. My file filed the 498A and DVC agiant
me and father and Mother, During the charge sheet stage for 498A,my
father name removed mentioned that no evedence found against my
father,And retained my name and my mother name in charge sheet. Incase
of DVC,in final order it was mentioned that DVC charges are dismmsied
against my father and Mother as there is no evidencce against them to
prove the charges. Now i have fillied the divorce case result they fillied the
crpc 125(3) for executing the order after 2 years of the DVC order passed, I
would like to ask that if my father can file any civil or criminal defmation
case agaisnt my wife and her parenst and witness who gave the
statemntes in 498A.Since there was not chargess proved in either 498A or
DVC,pls through some light if this work to bring any presurre on opposite
parties.
Defamation won't work. Roughly speaking, defamation lies when your
reputation is lowered in the eyes of someone who held a good opinion of
you; you cannot make that out for false statements made in Court in
course of judicial proceedings. If you really want to take her on, make a
complaint under Sections 191, 192, 195, 196 199, 200, 203, 211 of the
Indian Penal Code, i.e. the offences of false evidence (as applicable to your
case). Civil suit seeking damages for malicious prosecution can also be
filed. Having said that, I must add (though I don't wish to act as a
dampener on your spirits) but perjury and malicious prosecution charges
hardly ever lead to convictions in India; the very reason why liars lie
brazenly in Courts.
First you should prove that you are famous person and that your dignity
blah blah was defamed by the act of the opposite party. You might think
you are of high repute. But what are the things you got to prove it? First
prove that and then tell court that you were defamed by opposite party
acts. Then there is scope of winning case, overall I dont think you are shah
ruk khan or some hirtik roshan, to even able to afford lawyer to file
defamation case and fight it without result. It is a futile exercise to file
defamation case in india.
Do you think only shah ruk and hirtik has the only name and fame to
defame in the society and other are useless? Every citizen of india has their
own dignity and if that got dammged with false cases,dont you think that
effect the repuation of the person in society?if you are real lawyer and
living in the sociey, you may understood how the people will see if some
one file the Police and court cases,people will start talk differently and
treat differently. I pity you the way you reply.If one party made the
allegations againt you and he failed to prove that allegation then what you
do, will be silent think that you are not sharh khan or katrina khife. My
question was, the party who made allegation on me are failed to prove it
in the court of law/police.where police and ocurt said that no evidence
found to prove the allegation are relived after few years.is is not enough to
take any action?
Hello experts My wife filed u/s 24 of HMA seeking huge interim
maintenance during the pendency of divorce plea. She has suppressed
facts of employment and about her salary and that she is qualified. Also
she has lied about the time she left her matrimonial home , to seek more
maintenance from that date. She is harassing me as I didn't to give her any
maintenance in our discussions of MCD. My lawyer says that since wife has
sought maintenance , court shall grant relief to her, the quantum of
maintenance can be lowered. Also that this needs to be disposed of within
60 days. I am yet to file my w/s for the case. Can I initiate crpc 340
(perjury) for false affidavit in petition, with proofs of employment and
proofs of her stay . Since these false statements and suppressed facts are
intended to inflict material loss to me ? Can I file this along with with my
w/s
Well, to suggest u the practical way to avoid maintenance ... If u don't
mind staying aid your wife ... File hmp u/s 9 of Hindu marriage act. If it is
allowed u won't have to pay maintenance and thereafter if your wife
doesn't come to u to stay with u u can get a decree of divorce after one
year year Else, your lawyer is ryt dat amt can b lowered
Well, to suggest u the practical way to avoid maintenance ... If u don't
mind staying aid your wife ... File hmp u/s 9 of Hindu marriage act. If it is
allowed u won't have to pay maintenance and thereafter if your wife
doesn't come to u to stay with u u can get a decree of divorce after one
year Else, your lawyer is ryt dat amt can b lowered Once divorce has
happened, she is not allowed maintainance and if at all she can file only
under 125 Cr. P. C. Or u/s 25 of HMA. You take pre-objection.
1. The provisions of section 24 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are unique
in itself, where either of the spouse can move to the court for maintenance
pendente lite and litigation expenses.
2. Despite the fact your wife is earning handsome (even if it is more than
your income) she will be allowed and you will have to pay, if you want to
proceed the case. The perjury case may be attempted, if you get some
success, which I have doubt.
3. Demand /quantum of money for maintenance and litigation expenses
the sole discretion of the applicant. Suppose the applicant does not
demand "moon" can the court grant the applicant "palm or coconut"?
Therefore, the demand is bound to be highly inflated and there is nothing
wrong.
Thanks for the responses. Dr. Vaxx , isn't section 24 meant for people who
are destitutes ( men/women ) who cannot maintain themselves. IT should
some amount that should enough for food clothing shelter etc. Section 25
or crpc 125 one can ask for equity to what husband can afford and seek
same lifestyle comforts what husband can afford. I see there are hundreds
of judgements / references in the forum itself where in grounds of will full
desertions , capable and earning wifes have been denied any maintenance.
couldn't these act as pre cursor in any judicial proceedings? Regarding the
perjury , i got a reference from this forum , that in particular case
Sunny_Bhumbla_vs_Shashi , the punjab high court has clearly held that
wife section 340 should be initiated for filing false affidavit and
suppressing the facts of her employment , her salary in the first affidavit
which would influence the court judgement is act of perjury.
regards Ramesh pawar.
You are raising lot of questions and give answers yourself to all of them. If
you know everything better than anyone here, you should not have
approached this forum.
Mr Kalaiselvan & Dr Vashista Sorry if my queries were in anyway
offensive. I got these references in this forum and further makes me
confused. My wife has willfully deserted me, and is after my money. She
files for Divorce under false charges of cruelty . An MCD was not possible
because of the money factor. Thus she filed sec 24 against me.
regards Rxxx
Dear Mr. Siv, Filing a Perjury is a good decision. But you need to be ready
as it would be a bettle for you. So first arrange the document in your
support from all the efforts. You can also used the RTI option. Dont forget
a slow tortoise can be win then a faster Rabbit.
Dear Praveen, I am one of the expert in RTI. I used RTI and tried to get the
information. Eveything is ready and just I am waiting for the cross
examination. Recently this wife resinged for job and the reasons for
resignation is harassment from husband. she stated in the resignation
letter to director of that company saying that husband daily making phone
calls and telling to her company people badly about her... whereas I never
called her company ..... just I am waiting to fill such document in court to
cross her and catch her even on that tooo.... I wont leave this legal
terrorist.
If any person approach court with unclean hands they are not eligible for
anything and relevant citations are below:
(1) Har Narain v. Badri Dass, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1558.
(2) Welcome Hotel and Ors. v. State of A.P. and Ors., A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 1015.
(3) G. Narayanaswamy Reddy and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Ors.,
A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 1726.
(4) S.P. Chengalvarara Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. v. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs.
and Ors., (1995-1)109 P.L.R. 293(S.C.);
(5) R.G. Sinde v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1994 S.C. !673.
(6) Chint Ram Chand and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., A.I.R. 1996 S.C.
1406.
(7) Bhupinderpal Kaur v. Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab,
(1968)70 P.L.R. 169.
(8) Chiranji Lal and Ors. v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and Ors.,
(1978)80 P.L.R. 582 (F.B.).
(9) Harbhajan Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors., A.I.R. 1995 Pb. & Hry. 216 :
1994 P.L.J. 287.
(10) Jai Bhagwan Jain v. H.S.E.B. Panchkula, C.W.P. No. 15448 of 1993,
decided on 21.9.1994:
(11) Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Anr., 1994(4) S.C.T. 75 (P&H):
1994(5) S.L.R. 73.
(12) Kaka Ram Pars Ram and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., (1996-1)112
P.L.R. 691.
(13) C.W.P, No. 11686 of 1996 - Shri Kant and Ors. v. State of Punjab and
Ors., decided on 21.1.1997.
(14) C.W.P. No. 4381 of 1998 - Arihant Super Rice Land and Ors. v. State of
Haryana and Ors., decided on 6.8.1998.
 (15) C.W.P. No. 18304 of 1998 - Smt. Krishna Gupta v. State of Punjab and
Ors., decided on 1.12.1998.
(16) C.W.P. No. 2585 of 1999 - Santa Singh v. Union of India and Ors.,
decided on 24.2.1999.
(17) C.W.P. No. 11538 of 1999 - Meenu Seth v. State of Punjab and Ors.,
decided on 2.3.2000.
(18) C.W.P. No. 3520 of 2000 - Rajinder Parshad and Ors. v. Union of India
and Ors., decided on 31.5.2000. Jaspal Singh vs State Of Haryana And
Ors. on 31 January, 2003 Indian Kanoon -
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/907688/
1 (19) L.P.A. No. 349 of 1992 - Cement Corporation of India, Charkhi Dadri
v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-labour Court, Hissar and Ors.,
decided on 6.9.2001.
Hi Siv, Was your ex-wife in Govt organisation or in Private company. can
you plz share how you used RTI to get details of your wife from her
organization?
File RTI to income tax department and get details of wife's income tax
returns documents along with the supporting documents. Here you will
come across her bank account number and savings schemes with policy
numbers.. what else are required. To start with get wife's PAN CARD
number rom Income Tax website using her date of birth and name. If did
not disclose all the particulars then file criminal case against the wife at
any police station and ask the police collect the bank statetements and the
savings policy documents under secton 91 of CrPC in support f your case
for money extortion
Dear Munirathnam, I filed RTI to IT dept but they refused to give any
information saying it is personal information and not under purview of RTI.
I know her PAN number. Could not understand ..how can i file a criminal
case against my wife at police station & why police will collect her bank
statement and saving policy documents for money extortion.. Thanks.
Hi, Normally go to police/court to file complaint/PCR to get help to punish
the criminal. This pocedure is not only limited to wife but aso any citizen of
Inida. Innocent husband/family can go to police/court to file
complaint/PCR. After that investigation starts and during the investigation
the husband/family can request/help police to collect the required
material in support of the complaint/PCR f the husband/family. If husband
wants any documents in support of the case that is pending in criminal
court or Famuily court U/s 125 of CrPC, then husabnd side may file
application U/s 91 of CrPC .
Dear harsh pratap singh, Call the IT department office and speak to head of
that office then write letter to that head of the office to take action against
him for misleding you with the support of CIC decisions and also say that
you may reach High Court with writ petition for not acting against the
officer gave you false information.
Hi All, In this forum I asked lot of help stating some circumstances (not
only belongs to me) but if my wife assumes that all the circumstances are
related to my wife and make complaint will it cause harm to me?
Crpc 125 without affidavit
Hello Seniors I need your guidance on CRPC 125 Case. Short background:
Earlier Wife had filed DV case.
(a) JMFC provided maintenance to her and girl child.
(b) We appealed in District where her maintenance got cancelled as no DV
found.
(c) She appealed in HC. HC had dismissed her appeal saying "there was no
domestic violence and thus the petitioner had no cause to move the
application under the Domestic Violence Act". After 18 days of HC order
she has filed CRPC 125 case. Written statement from our side filed. but
even after 8 months she is not filing affidavit backing her complaint. Her
CRPC 125 complaint is just on declaration.
My question
(1) is affidavit must for CRPC 125?
(2) under which saction we can ask her affidavit ?
(3) does CPC 35B apply in such delay? any other suggestion.? Contradictory
statement in chief exam and cross exam
Cr.P.C 125 case:
Wife was working as a teacher in private school with 5000 salary which she
accepted in her chief examination and cross examination of Cr.P.C 125 case
in family court during April 2010. She got a govt job with 25000 salary in
May 2010. Her PW1 was her mother and in her chief and cross which
happened in Oct'10 told that her daughter is still working in private school
with 5000 salary. After this they are dragging the case till date by not
appearing on dates and taking false excuses DVC Case: Wife had hidden
her latest govt.job and gave a false statement in her chief examination of
DVC case in Dec'10 that she is still working in pvt.school with 5000 salary.
Her mother was again the PW1 and during her chief she said that her
daughter is working in private school with 5K salary. I got RTI from her govt
school and she also came to know that i have got the true information. So
during cross in DVC Wife accepted that she is working in govt.school but
informed that her salary is less than 20K. In PW1 cross her mother also
accepted that her daughter got a govt.job and her salary is around 20K.
This happened in Jul'11
My Question:
1. Can I use her statements given in DVC case in CrPC 125 case and take a
stand that she has committed perjury? Is this acceptable?
2. In DVC Since she had given different information in Chief and Cross, how
do i effectively use it and prove her lies? Kindly advice.
 Peter, Since there is a time difference between these two statement, a
person may change job in between. Do you have proof that she was
employed in government before Dec 10? If yes, you should file perjury is
your DV case. And as per multiple directives from high courts and supreme
courts perjury need to be disposed first before disposing main petition.
File RTI Application to the concerned department, requesting the certified
copies of all the appointment for 2009 to 2011 for the post of Teacher in
your state. take it as an evidence
Yes. I have RTI proofs of her leaving the private school, Date of Joining in
Govt.School, Her pay scale, Her take home salary. My query is she had lied
in chief but managed it in cross. (Both Chief and Cross in DVC was after the
date of her joining in Govt.) Same case with her PW1 too. Will this stand if I
file perjury? Also kindly provide the citations on Supreme Court ruling
which says that perjury need to be disposed first before disposing main
petition. Thank you!
Petxxer,
Do some ground work --
not everything can be served in a platter..
I was able to search one judgment for section 340 (perjury) and
Punjab and haryana High court Sunny Bhumbla .........Appellant Vs Shashi
CRA No. 197 SB of 2010 (O&M)
This is not perjury. The mother can always say that she was not aware that
her daughter had changed jobs. The daughter can then corraborate the
story by saying that she didnot even inform her family about her job, lest
the word spells out and you try to defame her in school and all.
CrPC 340 procedure cannot be bypassed by trial court This Punjab and
Haryana High court judgment says that if an application under CrPC 340 is
moved (for filing false affidavit in this case), then the court must undertake
the procedure for CrPC 340 in disposing that application. It was not correct
on part of trial court to refer cursorily to the mentioned fact of false
affidavit in judgment, and thus dismissing the CrPC 340 application by
being silent on the issue. So the takeaway for people facing false 498a and
maintenance cases is to go for perjury application under CrPC 340 if you
have good evidence like false affidavit, wrongly mentioned fact about not-
working, wrong salary mentioned etc.
CHANDIGARH CRA No. 197 SB of 2010 (O&M)
Date of decision: 25-1-2010
Sunny Bhumbla ………Appellant Vs Shashi ………Respondent
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL
Present: Shri K.S.Boparai, Advocate, for the appellant. HARBANS LAL, J.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 5.12.2008
Annexure P-1 passed by the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Saheed Bhagat Singh Nagar vide which he allowed the petition moved
under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for restitution of conjugal rights
leaving the parties to bear their own costs and rejected the application
moved under Section 195/340 Cr.P.C. I have heard the learned counsel for
the appellant, besides perusing the record with due care and
circumspection. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted with
great eloquence that after the respondent admitted in her cross-
examination about her employment, salary and inheritance of the landed
property, she again placed on record another affidavit dated 27.8.2008
solemnly affirming therein that she had inadvertently not mentioned
about the source of income as well as employment in the earlier affidavit
dated 14.8.2008. Thereafter the appellant moved an application under
Section 195 of Cr.P.C. for initiating proceedings against the respondent for
submitting a false affidavit CRA No. 197 SB of 2010 (O&M) 2 before the
learned trial Court, in order to get more maintenance from the appellant.
The learned trial Court had assured the appellant that his said application
shall be decided alongwith the main case. While deciding the main
petition, in paragraph No. 13 of the judgment it has been observed that “in
support of her claim for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, the respondent/applicant had made certain
assertions, which were found to be totally false and the same had
apparently been done by her in a deliberate manner. Consequently even
an application for initiating suitable proceedings against her on account of
her having submitted a false affidavit was also filed by the petitioner on
3.9.2008. Thereafter, the respondent did not press her claim for interim
maintenance, but the same did not absolve her of the liability of the
aforesaid lapse. This court, however, does not wish to initiate any such
proceedings against the respondent with the hope that sooner or later, the
parties may be in a position to resolve their dispute or else this young
couple may adopt such other means so that they can part their ways in a
peaceful manner and therefore, with a view to avoid undue complication
of the matrimonial dispute, no action on account of submitting of the
above false affidavit etc. is being initiated against the respondent." It is
further argued that the learned trial Court has overlooked the fact that the
respondent has used the false affidavit in the judicial proceedings.
Therefore, all the ingredients of the offences of cheating, forging and
perjury etc. are made out and consequently, the order passed by the
learned trial Court in not initiating the proceedings under Section 195 read
with Section 340 Cr.P.C. is illegal. CRA No. 197 SB of 2010 (O&M) 3 I have
given a deep and thoughtful consideration to these submissions. A careful
perusal of the observations rendered by the learned trial Court in
paragraph No. 13 of the impugned judgment would reveal that there is not
even a shred of reference to the application moved under Section 195 read
with Section 340 Cr.P.C. This apart, no specific reasons have been
apportioned for not initiating the action on the basis of the alleged
affidavit. The said application having been moved under the provisions of
the Code of Criminal Procedure was required to be disposed of separately.
It was not desirable on the part of the learned trial Court to decide the said
application in a slip shod manner by making mere passing reference to the
alleged affidavit. In the application moved under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C.
if the Court deems fit, the inquiry has to be held whereas in the present
one, the impugned order is absolutely silent as to whether or not inquiry
was held. There is specific procedure which is to be followed while
disposing of an application moved under Section 340 of the Criminal
Procedure Code. Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code reads as
under:- “340.Procedure in cases mentioned in Sec.195–(1) When, upon an
application made to it in this behalf or otherwise any Court is of the
opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should
be made into any offence referred to to in cl
(b) of sub-section
(1) of Section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation
to to a proceeding in that Court, or as the case may be, in respect of of a
document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, CRA
No. 197 SB of 2010 (O&M) 4 such Court may, after such preliminary
inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary.
(a) record a finding to that effect.
(b) make a complaint thereof in writing
(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction.
(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such
Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non- bailable and the Court thinks it
necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and
(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such
Magistrate.
(2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section
(1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court has neither
made a complaint under sub-section
(1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of
such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is
subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of Sec.195.
(3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed
(a) where the Court making complaint is a High Court, by such officer of
the Court as the Court may appoint.
(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court, and
(4) In this section, “Court” has the same meaning as in CRA No. 197 SB of
2010 (O&M) 5 Sec.195.” A glance through the impugned order would
reveal that the learned trial Court has given a go by to the provisions of
Section 340 Cr.P.C. The approach adopted by the learned trial Court is
unwholesome and is depreciable. The impugned order is absolutely silent
as to whether the application has been dismissed or allowed, if so for
which reasons. In consequence of the preceding discussion the trial Court
is directed to decide the application under discussion in accordance with
law. This appeal stands disposed of accordingly. (HAxxx) Perjury
Dear ld members, 05/08/2015 Wife filed 125 maintenance, dv act case
and 498a. She declared on affidavit that she is house wife but in cross
accepted that she has worked in so many organizations. Husband also
placed on record the status of her service and getting salary. Now husband
is 0i file the perjury case against wife. Advocate informed to file in other
court of jurisdiction instead of the same court as same court is family court
who will not take any action against her seriously. Kindly guide is it true ?
Yes buddy, its true in one way, but I suggest you file perjury in same court
now itself rather than filing in some other court. But Perjury etc again is
time consuming and I would sugesst you to go for compromise and take
mutual consent divorce and get rid of headache wife now itself, warna aise
hoga ko chillaya cheeka glaas toda aur jurmana aathana. Haath kuch nahi
lagega aur muft mein 15 years nikal jaayenge aur tum budde ho jaaoge.
Main kehta hoon koi ladki dhoondo shaadi karo fir se aur maze karo jab
umr he, no use roaming court hall dude.
i agree with mr gyan prakash advice.if she agrees to withdraw all cases
against you and proceed for mcd its fine or else fight the 498a and dv case
on merits.once if she fails to prove 498a and if its proved to be false you
can definitely get divorce on the grounds of cruelty.
i agree with mr gyan prakash advice.if she agrees to withdraw all cases
against you and proceed for mcd its fine or else fight the 498a and dv case
on merits.once if she fails to prove 498a and if its proved to be false you
can definitely get divorce on the grounds of cruelty. Instead of filing
Perjury in another court, better contest this pending matters and see that
her maintennce is rejected. Litigant parties should always calculate time,
energy and money required to be spent in every litigation and the result.
By the passage of time, tempo goes off, mental peace is lost, prime time of
youth is gone, in short , happy days are gone....please consider this and
forget about unnecessary litigations
Instead of filing Perjury in another court, better contest this pending
matters and see that her maintennce is rejected. Litigant parties should
always calculate time, energy and money required to be spent in every
litigation and the result. By the passage of time, tempo goes off, mental
peace is lost, prime time of youth is gone, in short , happy days are
gone....please consider this and forget about unnecessary litigations
Perjury against wife Read more at:
Hi I filed Case Sec-9 HMA and High court ordered session judge to transfer
it to competent jurisdiction. The Sessions court transferred this case to a
court in Ludhiana. My wife filed POA (wakalatnama) on 20-8-2015 in that
court. So it means she is very well known to the status of transfer of the
sec-9 case. On the other hand on 10-09-2015 in other court where she had
filed DVA U/s12 & 125 CrPC against me, in rejoinder(iterations) she
mentioned three times (in written) in both rejoinders that The Hon'ble
Punjab & Haryana High Court has trasnferred Sec-9 case to this court which
is a complete wrong statment & is a biggest lie in the name of "High Court
& its orders". This was mentioned to gain advatange & to mislead the
court. Also In U/s-12 DVA, she has hidden (not disclosed) my pending Sec-9
case against her. This means she has not come to the court with clean
hands. Also, her adcovate lied in the court that on 07-05-2015 hearing of
mediation at Ludhaiana was not attened by both parties as on the same
date another hearing was in other court at Patiala. While I was present in
mediation centre and my attendance is marked there. On the statement of
learned counsel, the court passed orders that " both parties could not
appear in meadiation center due to another court hearing". So the
advocate made court to pass wrong orders by giving false statment even
on my behalf. I want to know are above facts are enough to file perjury
against my wife. Please guide. I really need help.
Presume you have a personal lawyer. Ask him these question as he is well
aware of your case
Perjury - useful
Hi All, This is one of the latest judgements, it dispels many doubts. Doubt
1: Which any lawyer not worth his salt would be telling you, in summary
proceedings CrPC 340 does not stand. This very well stands. Offence of
perjury is committed when a lie is told in any judicial proceedings. Doubt
2: Even after presenting Direct Evidence, the court has to order an inquiry
into allegations of perjury. There is not the case, on direct evidence, the
court can directly bound the person for trial. I would like to thank Dr.
Sandeep for sharing this judgement with me. We have been helping each
other for filing perjury case against our respective spouses and other
witnessess and in this event we have gathered a great deal of judgements
on perjury. I would be posting only the most relevant ones on the forum.
It is very difficult to make lawyers agree to file CrPC 340. But be persistant,
if you have any direct evidence.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL.M.C. 1130/2008 & CRL.M.A.4231/2008
JAGDISH PRASAD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.R.B. Pandey,
Advocate. versus STATE & ORS. .....
Respondents Through: Mr.Jaideep Malik,APP. Mr. R.P. Kaushik, Advocate
for Respondent No.2. CORAM:
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes ORDER
23.03.2009
1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure
(CrPC) is directed against an order dated 22nd February 2008 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Delhi allowing Crl.A.No.18 of 2005
filed by the Respondent No.2 against an order dated 9 th September 2005
passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) Delhi in an
application filed by the Petitioner herein under Section 340 CrPC. By the
said order dated 9th September 2005, the learned MM came to the prima
facie conclusion that Respondent No.2 had committed an offence under
Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and ought to be prosecuted for
the same. The learned ASJ has, in the impugned order, set aside the order
dated 9 th September 2005 on the ground that the learned MM had not
determined if it was expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry
should be held for ascertaining whether the Respondent No.2 should be
prosecuted for the offence under Section 193 IPC.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that
Respondent No.2 wife filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking
maintenance from the Petitioner husband for herself and the minor female
child. In her petition she stated in Para 15 that she was "not employed
anywhere and is unable to maintain herself and her said minor girl Shruti
and they presently are survived on the mercy of parents of the petitioner
No.1 (wife) who themselves have limited resources to maintain the large
family."
3. According to the Petitioner in the month of June 2001, the Respondent
No.2 wife had joined Tirath Ram Shah Charitable Hospital, Rajpur Road,
Delhi as a ‘Receptionist’ and was receiving salary from the said hospital.
On this basis, Petitioner had earlier filed an application under Section 340
CrPC which, according to Respondent No.2, was dismissed on 16th
September, 2003.
4. On 12th February 2004, Respondent No.2 was examined in chief in the
maintenance petition. She stated: "I was not working anywhere after my
marriage, I was not working till today anywhere from the date when I was
kicked out from my matrimonial home." She was cross examined on 7th
April 2004 and was asked whether she was doing any job during the
pendency of the petition. She replied that "since after coming to my
parental home, I am not doing any job. I have one bank account in Co−
operative Bank. It is incorrect to suggest that after coming to my parental
home, I have worked with Tirath Ram Shah Charitable Hospital, Rajpur
Road, Delhi." In response to another specific question whether she was
holding a bank account at Punjab National Bank, Civil Lines she stated as
under: "It is wrong to suggest that I am holding an account which is 427791
in the above said bank i.e., PNB"
5. Consequent upon the above replies in cross examination, the Petitioner
filed an application under Section 340 CrPC seeking the prosecution of the
Petitioner for committing perjury punishable under Section 193 CrPC.
6. It appears that a reply was filed to the said petition by Respondent No.2.
Even evidence appears to have been led by examining the officials from
both the Punjab National Bank as well as the Tirath Ram Shah Charitable
Hospital.
7. RW−2 D.S. Bandari, Senior Manager, Punjab National Bank, Civil Lines,
Delhi was examined on 28th September 2004. He confirmed that an
account had been open by Respondent No.2 with the bank with the
addresses "C/o Tirathram Shah Hospital, 2 Battery Lane, Rajpur Road,
Delhi −54." He stated: "On 20.07.01 Smt. Veena Bhatt opened her account
in Punjab National Bank, Civil Lines, Delhi. The account was introduced by
Sh.B.Arora, SF account No.11908 with the address C/o Tirathram Shah
Hospital, 2 Battery Lain(sic Lane), Rajpur Road, Delhi−54 with a initial
amount of Rs.500/−. She was allotted account No.427791. Statement of
the account since opening of the account till today is exhibited as
Ex.RW2/A, Ex.RW2/B, Ex.RW2/C, Ex.RW2/D. At the time of opening of
account Smt. Veena Bhatt stated her occupation "service" which has been
written in point A over Ex.RW2/D.
8. RW−3 Manoj Nair, AAO, Tirath Ram Shah Hospital in his examination in
chief stated as under:− "The authority letter given by Dr.A.K.Dubey,
Director is Ex.RW3/A. That from 06.06.01 to 10.06.02 Mrs.Veena served in
Tirath Ram Shah Hospital. She was working as a receptionist on fixed term
contract basis. The gross salary of Mrs.Veena was Rs.3,572/− only. Her
employment no. was 1225. I identify Mrs. Veena who is present in the
court. There was break in service for one day. Smt. Veena Bhatt was
working as a receptionist and not as a trainee as per the record. In my
hospital no receptionist trainee are engaged. She has not applied for the
renewal of her further contract after 10.06.02. I can submit a copy of the
application form and record of salary if required. The original is before this
hon’ble court. Application for employment form is Ex.RW3/B (four
pages)and the copy of salary register for the month of June, 2001 to June,
2002 are collectively Ex.RW3/C (12 pages)."
9. The cross examination only elicited the following clarification by
Respondent No.2:− "It is correct that Smt. Veena had not worked in the
hospital as a permanent hospital (sic) or on ad hoc basis or on temporary
basis she had worked only on contract basis.”
10. The learned MM in the order dated 9th September 2005 came to the
following conclusion:− "I have gone through the record of the present
application as well as the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is
pending in the present court. Smt. Veena may have had a genuine cause
for having worked as proved against her in her case and also admitted by
her in the present proceedings. Nevertheless her pressing requirements for
income does not exonerate her from the offence of having given false
testimony in the court. I am, therefore, of the opinion that Smt. Veena has
committed an offence under Section 193 IPC and she ought to be
prosecuted for the same."
11. Aggrieved by the above order, Respondent No.2 filed an appeal in the
Court of learned ASJ. Among the grounds urged in the appeal were that an
earlier petition under Section 340 CrPC having been dismissed, a further
application ought not to have been entertained by the learned MM. It was
further urged that there was never any intention on the part of
Respondent No.2 to commit any offence and that her only intention was to
claim maintenance as per law. It was sought to be urged that in the
recording of the answers to the questions put to Respondent No.2 in her
cross examination there were chances of inadvertent mistakes "unless it is
in the language of the appellant/witness i.e. Hindi/vernacular language.".
It was also urged that the learned MM had, in fact, pronounced a final
judgment on the guilt of the Respondent No.2 for the offence under
Section 193 IPC and, therefore, the order dated 9th September 2005 stood
vitiated.
12. In the impugned order dated 22nd February 2008, the learned ASJ has
referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Afzal v. State of
Haryana and others AIR 1996 SC 2326, Murrari & Company 2002 (2) SCC
367 and Pritish v. State of Maharashtra and others AIR 2002 SC 236 to hold
that it was incumbent on the learned MM to come to a definite conclusion
that it was expedient in the interest of justice that an action should be
taken against respondent No.2 under Section 193 IPC. The learned ASJ
proceeded to observe as under:− "Mere recording of a finding to the effect
that an offence punishable under section 193 of the Penal Code was
committed would not answer requirement of section 340 of the Code.
When primary question was answered in affirmative then secondary and
most effective proposition was to be answered to the effect whether it
was expedient in the interest of justice to initiate an action in the matter.
No such step was taken by the Trial Court to see that it was expedient in
the interest of justice to take such action. In such a situation, order
impugned is shrouded with illegality. In cannot be allowed to stand.
Consequently, order impugned is set−aside and appeal is granted. Trial
Court record be sent back. File be consigned to Record Room."
13. Learned counsel for the Petitioner makes a two−fold submission.
According to him, the learned ASJ, hearing the criminal appeal had to
specifically direct the complainant to withdraw the complaint and could
not have passed any other order. Secondly, he submits that a reading of
the order dated 9th September 2005 passed by the learned MM shows
that, in fact, the learned MM had come to a conclusion about the
expediency in the interest of justice for prosecuting Respondent No.2 thus
satisfying the requirement of the law under Section 340
14. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 urged that there was no
illegality in the order of learned ASJ mandating a full−fledged inquiry prior
to the formation of opinion that it was expedient in the interest of justice
to prosecute Respondent No.2. He submits that inasmuch as there was no
specific conclusion drawn by the learned MM to that effect, the order
dated 9th September 2005 stood vitiated. He also submits that with the
learned MM already having concluded on the guilt of Respondent No.2,
nothing really remained as far as the prosecution of Respondent No.2 was
concerned. It would be an empty formality.
15. The submissions of both sides have been heard. As regards the first
contention, a reference may be made to Section 341 CrPC which reads as
under:−
(1) Any person on whose application any Court other than a High Court has
refused to make a complaint under sub−section (1) or sub−section
(2) of section 340, or against whom such a complaint has been made by
such Court, may appeal to the Court to which such former Court is
subordinate within the meaning of sub−section
(4) of section 95, and the superior Court may thereupon, after notice to the
parties concerned, direct the withdrawal of the complaint or, as the case
may be, making of the complaint which such former Court might have
made under section 340, and if it makes such complaint, the provisions of
that section shall apply accordingly."
16. A plain reading of the above provisions would show that an appeal can
be filed by either a complainant seeking to invoke Section 340 CrPC or by a
person against whom the Court below has invoked the provision. In the
instant case, the provision was successfully invoked by the Petitioner
before the learned MM and it was Respondent No.2 who filed an appeal.
While accepting her submission, learned ASJ set aside an order dated 9th
September 2005. The effect of this was the withdrawal of a complaint
itself. Therefore, there was no illegality committed by learned ASJ as far as
the order that should have been passed under Section 341 CrPC. The first
submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner is accordingly rejected.
17. That brings us to the merits of the case. The only ground on which the
learned ASJ appears to have set aside the order dated 9th September 2005
passed by the learned MM is that a definite opinion was not formed by the
learned MM that it was expedient in the interest of justice to prosecute
Respondent No.2 for the offence under Section 193 IPC. The learned ASJ
unfortunately does not appear to have referred to the record of the
detailed inquiry conducted by learned MM. This involved not only
considering the reply filed by Respondent No.2 but also the evidence
recorded of RW−2 i.e. the Senior Manager D.S.Bandari of the PNB and
RW−3, the official of the ‘Tirath Ram Shah Hospital Manoj Nair. In the light
of the evidence of these witnesses, the relevant portion of which have
been extracted hereinbefore, there was no question of learned MM having
to hold any further inquiry in order to determine whether Respondent
No.2 ought to be prosecuted or not.
18. In the considered view of this Court, when the learned MM in the order
dated 9th September 2005 observed "I am, therefore, of the opinion that
Smt. Veena has committed an offence under Section 193 IPC and she ought
to be prosecuted for the same", the requirement of Section 340 CrPC as
explained by the Supreme Court stood satisfied. In other words, the
opinion formed by learned MM was obviously only a tentative or a prima
facie one. This is plain from the expression "ought to be prosecuted".
Further, the same expression "ought to be prosecuted" also indicates the
formation of an opinion that it was expedient in the interest of justice that
Respondent No.2 should be prosecuted. Therefore, both the requirements
of law as explained by the Supreme Court in relation to Section 340 CrPC
stood completely satisfied by the order dated 9th September 2005 passed
by the learned MM. This Court is, therefore, unable to agree with the
conclusion reached by learned ASJ to the contrary.
19. The order dated 22nd February 2008 passed by the learned ASJ is
accordingly set aside. The order dated 9th September 2005 passed by the
learned MM and the consequent application presented to the learned
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for prosecuting Respondent No.2
are revived. The further steps will proceed in accordance with law.
20. The petition is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs. The
pending application is also disposed of. S. MURALIDHAR, J. MARCH 23,
2009
Model format of application u/s 340 crpc
Hi, I am seeking model format of application under section 340 CrPC..If
there is any link available on this site.Please do forward it
dear frnd better seek help of some local lawyer in this regard, 340 matter
is to be drafted with utmost care.
.i agree with the above ...but even though please find below a sample
format you have to be familiar with the section under IPC 191 upto 195
and also with CRPC this is just for your reference the matter depends and
varies on case to case basis and should be filled in a similar format . After
seeing this format i hope your mental depression has faded away . all the
best .
in your fight for justice .
BEFORE THE HON’BLE ……… AT…… . M.A. No. x/2012 Mrs. …………………… ---
Applicant V/S Mr. ……………………… ---
Opponent APPLICATION FILED U/S 191 & 195 OF IPC. READ WITH 340, 250,
357 OF Cr. PC. Application filed on behalf of Opponent is as under:
1. That the applicant has filed above mentioned application under …………..
of the Act.
2.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………
3. That this Opponent says that the applicant has deposed falsely from
para x to XXX under affidivat .
4. As per Section 191 of IPC if someone being legally bound by an oath or
by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to
make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false
and which she either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to
be true is said to give false evidence.
5. As per Section 195 of IPC if someone gives or fabricates false evidence
intending thereby to cause ,or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby
cause, any person to be convicted of an offence which by the law for the
time being in force in India is not capital, but punishable with
imprisonment for life ,or imprisonment for a term of seven years or
upward, shall be punished as a person convicted of that offence would be
liable to be punished. So the applicant be prosecuted, tried and penalized
under section 340 of Cr. PC.
6. As the applicant has filed false complaint against the Opponent,
Opponent has to secure his presence before Hon’ble Court on each and
every date .He has to face false trial pass through great hardship under
such circumstances the applicant has enjoyed all the proceedings and
wasted the precious time of Hon’ble Court.
7. The Opponent further says that the applicant has harassed him by filing
false application and evidences so she may be directed to pay the
compensation as per Section 250 and 357 of Crpc to the Opponent. It is
therefore prayed that:
1. The applicant may kindly be prosecuted and tried and punished as per
section 195 of IPC 340 of Cr. PC.
2. The applicant may kindly be directed to pay compensation of Rs
XXXXXXXX to the Opponent
3. Any other just and equitable order in the interest of justice be kindly be
passed
there is no modal format. it is the easiest thing on this earth. just write
down everything in a straight forward manner. sec 195 and 340 crpc have
to be read together.
Hello, Its a great Assistant in a Positive Spirit. Thank you So much. Infact,
your resolution has helped me too. I have a case from Charity
Commissioners office, that the Applicants have falsly filed Relief under
Interim Injuntion u/s 41/E of BPT 1950 in the Year February 2017 with the
affidavit. This was dismissed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune
stating that the Applicant does not have any right to obligate the opponent
that the Opponent is the rightful trustee of the property. Today, being so
delayed, is there any possibilty that the 340 IPC pattern will remain
constructive.
I had filed application u/s 340 crpc in d/v case. mm refused to make a
complaint. I want to file /appeal as provided u/s 341 CRPC TO SESSIONS.
CAN ANYBODY GIVE A SKELETON / ESSENTIALS OF APPLICATION U/S 341.
Shall be much thankful. I am a lawyer but not so much conversant with
family matter.
Exparte order in 125 case
dear respected members please advise. due to dates missed by my lawyer,
125 case is declared exparte, that is the petitioner is allowed to proceed
with evidence without cross and respondent is not allowed for evidence..i
would like to ask, if merely the petitioner claims that the husband earns rs
XXX in her petition and oral evidence, and doesnt have any documentry
evidence to prove her claim of husbands income, then..
1) does the court grant maintainence only on the oral claim made by the
wife?
2) does the court not ask for any documentry evidence from the wife? if
she claims that husband earns rs 100000 and she wants rs 20000 then does
the court straight away give rs 20000, just because the husband lost his
opportunity to present his side of the story?
3) how does the court calculate the maintainence is such scenarios? where
only oral evidence is given by wife, without any evidence and court is
proceeding exparte without giving husband the chance to explain? ..the
husband has already appealed in high court to make the case bi-parte, the
case is still running..
dear experts please advise.
If you do not follow-up on a regular basis on your own case, then you have
to face the consequences. You cannot blame the Judge or for that matter
even your lawyer. If you don't give a damn about your own case, why
should the lawyer? Of course, he has an ethical obligation, etc.. etc... but if
you do not know enough about lawyers by now, you must be living on
another planet. If you do not file any rebuttals to claims made by the
opposite side, of course, the case will be ruled ExParte by accepting the
factual assertions of your wife. I consider it VERY irresponsible for any man
to simply not follow-up on an important case like 125 Cr.P.C. filed by his
wife. Your best remedy at this time is to fie an application with the Court
to set aside the ex-parte order... I think that you do not need to appeal this
and can do this in the trial court itself. Please confirm this as I am not sure.
You will have to spend a lot of time and efforts on this... A stitch in time
saves nine... in your case, it will be ninety-nine.
hi sam, thanks for your reply, i know it was careless on mypart, the
problem was, i live in another state, so i used to followup with my lawyer
on phone, on an ocassion i missed a date to call. the lawyer missed, the
case was set aside, again my lawyer missed the second date, this time it
was exparte evidence, so we had filed an appeal in high court to set aside
the exparte which is still under consideration. so i wanted to know how
would the judge consider my income?
Now a days a form has to be filled which gives all immovable and movable
p[roperty details and income opf both spouses under litigation. Affidavit is
given by both parties. Based on oral eviodence, affidaviot and the format
filled out decision is taken as per norms set in various courts and need of
claiming person and her life style If the case has been made exparte you
can get it vacated from High court and normally one opportunity is given
by court imposing some fine. Once a judge passed ex parte order he cant
remove it. Even after any adverse order passed you can prefer appeal and
there present all detailos and get maintenance rectified. Please note 125 is
a emergency measure under Cr PC final order has to come from civil suit in
family court and that decree is final. YOu can move family court and get
maintenance fixed and 125 order will merge into it.
Note if your lawyer missed the date give him notice and make his
complaint in Bar council. This is serious professional misconduct. read
online Bar council code of conduct for advocates.These are very tough. Ask
your erring lawyer to go and get ex parte order vacated or face your
complaint.
thank you gupta sir, i had already filed my WS in reply to their petition.
howerver after that the dates were missed. so even while passing an
exparte order, will the court atleast take into consideration my WS? thanks
again
Yes magistrate should consider your reply on file as it was before signing
case to proceed ex-parte. Why people fear courts I cant understand. Courts
dont adjudicate blindly. I give my example. I won a money decree in
chandigarh after that I migrated to jodhpur. The judgement debtor
naturally filed appeal with session judge. I was not present any time. Even
notice was sent on chandigarh old address. case procceded exparte
without a line from my side. Opposite LAWYERS TENDERED 5 AUTHORITIES
IN CASE. AFTER 2.5 YEARS SESSION JUDGE SIMPLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL
.Opposite party though to take advantage of my abence and get dismissed
by exparte. So relax!
Refund of interim maintenance when final maintenance is nil
Dear Experts,
As per my understanding, interim order is subject to final order and that
final order replaces the interim order from the date when the interim
order came into effect. Can this be applied to maintenance proceedings in
a matrimonial dispute? For example, Court grants interim maintenance of
Rs. 10,000 per month to wife in Domestic Violence Act. However at the
time of final order the Court finds that domestic violence was not
committed and the case is false and thus wife was not entitled to
maintenance. Same would apply to HMA proceedings. When the wife
knows that the case is false she should not be consuming interim
maintenance amount. Whether in this case the interim maintenance paid
by husband will be required to be refunded by wife? Whether an explicit
order is required stating that if the final maintenance is lower or is nil then
the wife will refund the excess.
Thanks & Regards
There is no provision to refund the amount already paid as interim
maintenance of wife and children even if the case is dismissed.
a person who enjoyed the benefit of an interim order, is liable to
compensate the other party, when the main case is decided against him."
Hon'ble Madras High Court in S.Ramesh vs MS.Cethar Ltd. [ Writ Appeal
(MD) No.1122 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2015 ] Would it be
correct to say that dismissal of the main petition means that the plantiff
had at interim stage hidden the facts and lied in the affidavit. And thus the
interim order was obtained by playing fraud on Court and /or by
misrepresentation? When the wife knows that her claim is false she should
not be consuming interim maintenance amount. Can any advantage or
order or decree obtained by misrepresentation before Court, be allowed to
perpetuate? In such a situation Iwhether specific provision is required for
refunding the interim relief obtained?
You are sticking the above case law which is Labour oriented to a
matrimonial dispute. This will not hold good on the following grounds:
1. The parties and the circumstnaces are different.
2. The citation is of Labour case where as your case is quasi criminal in
nature. You can file a applicaition asking the amount back. The application
will be accepted by the magistrate too, but eventually it will be dismissed
as law favours the woman. If the amount paid by you it too high, you can
simply avoid giving alimony if divorce is granted. Even if divorce case is
going on, or is about to be filed, if wife asks alimony you can say you have
paid it in DV case and cite the same citation in family court. Everything
depends upon discretion of judge. I dont have any trust left in the judges
as most of them copy in exams and would have passed, wont read any
petition themselves and depend solely on typist, most cases are discussed
with typist and attenders who pour in their opinion which will influence
the jduges final orders. You have no where stated whether you have filed
divorce or not. If DV is not proved better to file perjury case, she will go to
jail for filing false case on you. Try the perjury option instead of fighting to
get back money in which age will be lost. Its not so that in perjury case age
wont be lost, there you have certainity of seeing wife behind bars.
You can claim back the interim alimony that you paid? No. It is for the
length of period the case runs and its not permanent alimony or
maintenance. Under what section you paid money under DV act? That you
have not told anywhere. If you paid it as rent, then the money is gone. If
you paid it as food expenses, that money is gone. It wont come back. They
have formulated money payment from husband to wife under DV act only
on above two terms. Food and shelter. When there is dispute between you
two, ultimately its the duty of husband to pay for wife even if there is
dispute among you two. Indian Law gives free hand to judges to order
maintenance for wives. Husband is bound to pay even if he has not done
anything. Consider you had paid s*x for some time... the worth of your
refund you want to claim,
Sir thanks for your truthful and realistic insight into the overall system.
Your suggestion is regaridng Perjury is also accepted with thanks.
My question is regarding Domestic Violence Act - Interim Maintenance.
The interim maintenance under this Act is more tricky because
maintenance and scope of maintenance is not defined. What is the
difference of scope of maintenance under DV act because it says that
maintenance is in addition to maintenance granted under other laws.
Whether the concept of "unable to maintain" apply in DV Act also? Any
ruling of SC or HC is available on this issue? When you say that
maintenance under DV Act is only for food and shelter... I am kind of
happily surprised. But Courts do not take this view. This view of food and
shelter is from any judgement?
Gupta Sir thanks for your truthful and realistic insight into the overall
system. Your suggestion is regaridng Perjury is also accepted with thanks.
My question is
 regarding Domestic Violence Act - Interim Maintenance. The interim
maintenance under this Act is more tricky because maintenance and scope
of maintenance is not defined. What is the difference of scope of
maintenance under DV act because it says that maintenance is in addition
to maintenance granted under other laws. Whether the concept of "unable
to maintain" apply in DV Act also? Any ruling of SC or HC is available on
this issue? When you say that maintenance under DV Act is only for food
and shelter... I am kind of happily surprised. But Courts do not take this
view. This view of food and shelter is from any judgement? Thanks First
question you need to ask is WOULD YOU HAVE PAID BACK? That will given
answer to many other questoins arising. Maintnenance is given only that
wife can maintain herself with minimal needs like food clothing shelter
when husband files divorce case or even if wife files divorce case or any
other case. There is no need of judgement for this. These are mentioned in
varoius law books. You can google them. Maintenance is not given so that
it will be spent on movie tickets. Its for minimum needs that husband
should provide his wife during subsistence of marriage. Once divorce is
granted again wife has to ask alimony if she is incapable of earning money.
In your case, how you let magistrate order interim? That you ask yourself
or your advocate. Even if magistrate ordered interim, why did you pay? Do
you have any answer for that? You are lucky that magistrate dismissed her
DV case. You are expecting too much. You want judgements? You ask your
advocate. Or search yourself. I replied due to academic interest and
nothing more than that. My opinion is you cant get back what you paid to
your wife. You try to get rid of wife by mutual divorce. No use fighting
matrimonial dispute in Indian COurts. Nobody wins, all lose eventually,
many pay with their lives. BEWARE. Find life else where soon. Dont run
behind courts, Indian Courts can never give justice in matrimonial disputes
 Sir, I am taking your advice very seriously and sincerely. Thank you for
that. In my last post I am not looking for judgement on the issue of refund
of maintenance. I am looking for judgement on the issue of scope of
"interim" maintenance in DV and limitations to that like food, shelter etc.
Is this right time to file 340 in 125 ? Case is on final arguments in 125.
Lots of lies of wife uncovered during cross.
Example she says in evidence affidavit that she is not working but I proved
her work in 3 schools . Called record from schools.
Many other lies also caught.
Now, is this right time to file perjury / 340 ?
Or I'll wait for final judgement ? My updates :: crpc482:: 498a
Hi Thanks to all for moral support. My updated action as follows:
1. 125/Intriem has been replied and case is going on ....
2. 498a order has been passed by district cout, i approched high court for
482 instead stay. Mediation is ok if occurs. Complaint was made in
2013...no invetigation/F.I.R yet. Also no bails yet.
3. RCR if going on ....likly to be exparty. RCR Notices sent as per 125 case
address of party but ignored....what if she is on another address. For
example: W fights case from A address. H sends notice on A address.
Notice returns because W is actually on B Address. Is it acceptable. Would
like some ligh on point 2 & 3. Thanks & regards ABCD
May be you are willing to review your steps by LCI experts. Assuming this
my opinion is: - Please withdraw RCR. It is a useless section as she will file
maintenance pendent lite near ex-parte. My personal opinion is, never file
any MAT suit. Let her file it. I never advised to file quashing alone. I always
advised quashing with speedy trial. File distinct perjury against 125 CrPC &
498A in the same court. If you win perjury then everything will be
resolved.
While making a transfer application in Supreme court, the petitioner has
made many false statements regarding the employment and hide the
interim maintenance amount order. However, there is a proper record of
the employment attached in learned trial court. The petitioner has also
moved CrPc U/s 125 against the respondent with misleading facts in trial
court at her residence place jurisdiction.
1. first can an application of perjury can be moved in such cases. If an
application of perjury ( section 193) need to be moved then where it
should be applied ? or In supreme court or Lower trial court of my
residence ( in other state, place of husband residence)?
Rajiv sir, can this file in my place of residence i.e. Ajmer, rajasthan , while
she stays in UP. where is jurisdiction to file this matter, as it happened in
SC petition so I think should be filed in Supreme court.
much has been debated in the forum about asking for maintainence under
different heads like 125 , DV, HMA 24, after going through numerous
threads in the forum, and reading comments from various learned
members, i have observed varying answers to both extreme ends of the
spectrum, some are of the view that such filing of multiple maintainence
attracts perjury, some say that different heads for provision of
maintainence are given by the law, hence there is no restriction of filing of
multiple maintainence cases, the end result is a different matter
altogether. i would like the experts to please shed light on this aspect of
maintainence. what if maintainence is asked under the same act (HMA 24)
in two cases (RCR and DIVORCE) especially if fact is hidden before the
other court that maintainence is already being drawn under the same act
from a different court if maintainence is already allowed under some other
act, but suppression of this fact and applying for maintainence again under
some different provision ( doesnt this amount to abuse of the process of
law ) so if such a scenario does take place , then what is the possible step
that a respondent should take to punish the culprit is taking advantage of
different provisions for maintainence. request replies from experts. thanks
Maintenance will be awarded only once. Wife is not entittle for double
maintenance.
I have same query too. please shed some light i.e. what is difference ?
how to inform court and can we apply for dismiss if it already awarded ?
though it is a settled matter that maintainence is awarded only once, my
query is, if the petitioner hids from the court that a certain maintainence
has already been awarded, and she is already getting it (irrespective of the
section on which it is drawn) and she doesnt amend her previous petition,
and she doesnt state the new facts that now she is getting maintainence.
the court might certainly not entertain her second plea. however. does this
act of hers attract sec 340 or perjury? lying under oath, and not disclosing
before court that maintainence has already been awarded, and trying to
grab a second maintainence. is there any provision to penalize such a
petitioner.
I am not an expert but some interesting legal questions are raised and
having encountered such situations myself, here are my two cents on
them: Maintenance applications can certainly be filed, concurrently or
otherwise, under multiple Acts and such repeated filings do NOT constitute
perjury. The key defense to such repeated filings, once maintenance is
granted under an Act, is that there has been no change in circumstances to
justify another trial to enhance the amount. If there is a change in
circumstances, for example the wife has recently got married, husband's
income has increased dramatically or a new child is born to the wife or
something along these lines, even under the same Act a fresh maintenance
application can be initiated by the wife. If maintenance was denied under
one Act, it is possible that it can be granted under another. The reason
behind this is the language of maintenance under different Acts. It is the
quantum of maintenance that can be defended more easily, once granted.
There are also technicalities such as arrears in maintenance, if never
applied before, which a wife/woman may qualify under one Act but not
under another. Defenses such as laches, constructive res judicata or law of
limitations may not survive for some Acts but may for others. These subtle
technicalities, in matters of arrears in maintenance never applied earlier,
can be used by a wife to serious detriment of the husband. The situation
can also be that circumstances may have improved for the wife - she may
have taken a job which she did not have earlier - such change in
circumstances allow applications to be filed by the husband to amend or
eliminate the maintenance granted earlier. Such applications should be
filed under the very Act under which the maintenance sought to be
reduced was granted. Contrary to popular belief, the Act under which
maintenance is filed is very relevant to offer defenses and defenses need
to be worded with the Act in mind. However, once it is found that the
defenses do not apply, the issue is that of quantum of maintenance and for
that the Act under which it is filed may not matter significantly. Therefore,
once maintenance is granted under one Act, any subsequent applications,
filed under any Act, for enhancement, reduction or elimination, absent a
material change in circumstances, will not survive a dismissal application.
Now, lets talk about suppression of maintenance already granted in fresh
applications. This comes under suppression of material facts and not
perjury in Indian jurisdictions, even if the suppression was under Oath and
the suppressed fact/evidence was material to the controversy. My reading
on the subject (because my wife had materially suppressed numerous facts
in her petitions/applications) is that the Court can dismiss the petition but
she can refile it with full disclosure. There are numerous, general case laws
on the subject on suppression of material facts. In the end, suppression of
material facts only delays the proceeding - Husbands usually like things to
move fast. So, it is better to raise the issue, lead evidence to allow new
facts which were suppressed and let the trial continue and not seek
dismissal. Penalties for suppression of material facts? If our Courts did
that, all wives coming to Family Court would be in jail or paying thefty
fines because as we all know, they always suppress, not one, but many
material facts - not just on maintenance but everything. However, that
said, suppression of material facts in an application for maintenance,
which relates to the issue of quantum of maintenance, and doing so in the
application under Oath as well as during cross-examination under Oath
and later proving to be false, has been found to constitute perjury with
corresponding penalties - civil and criminal. For example, if a wife claims to
be unemployed, testifies under Oath and is later found to be employed,
perjury charges will survive. "So, it is better to raise the issue, lead
evidence to allow new facts which were suppressed and let the trial
continue and not seek dismissal." should be "So, it is better to raise the
issue, lead evidence to allow new facts which were suppressed and let the
trial continue and not seek dismissal on grounds of suppression of material
facts alone but on other grounds, if applicable."
..thanks for your detailed reply buddy, this was the main dilemma i was
going through, but with your detailed reply, i have got my answer, as many
lawyers are misguiding husbands that we will file crpc 340 for supression
of material facts. mainly in cases where maintainence has already been
granted but the fact is not amended in her main petition, ideally, her main
petition should be amended to include the fresh facts that maintainence
has already been granted. in a situation where, her other cases for
maintainence come up for evidence, say a DV case, or a 125 case, and she
continues to claim whatever is laid in her petition, but, she was caught in
the cross examination of her previous case, then what happens? because
in my case, i crossed her for questions not pertaining to her relavant case
which was going on, the case was for her RCR, i put forward my questions
relating to maintainence cases., and she was caught completely unaware, i
successfully applied this technique to extract maximum truth which would
be useful to me in my maintainence case, now her maintainence case is
coming up for evidence. so now if she states what is written in her
petition, then, by using her oral evidence, can i apply for perjury. You seem
to be doing what I did too... similar situations and in my case too I was not
too sure of how to handle the situation. Advocates were misguiding even
when they were not sure. In any event, this is what I found to be the
legally best way to leverage past admissions or evidence in a new case:
During her cross-examination in the current case, start asking her about
old cases, their docket numbers (case number), etc. Get that info on the
record. Then, ask her if she was cross-examined in those cases. Get that on
the record. Then present her and the Court with the official transcriptt of
the cross-examination in the previous case. The Court MUST be given
official transcriptt of the cross-examination as issued by the previous
Court. Ask the Court to mark it as an Exhibit so that you can reference the
Exhibit and therefore her cross in your arguments in this case. Then ask her
if she had lied under Oath in her previous Cross. The Court or her advocate
may object to this line of questioning. If the Court /Judge accepts the
objection or raises it itself, ask the Court to register your objection on the
record so that the fact that you have asked this question is on the record,
even though the Court ordered that she need not answer this. From a
procedure perspective, this is the most appropriate way to get it on the
record. Ordinarily transcripts of cross-examinations in earlier proceedings
are also acceptable without expressly presenting them to her in her cross.
However, doing it the way I suggested, ensures that all procedural loop
holes are sealed. Now that you have got two contradictory cross-
examinations under Oath from her, she is trapped. Therefore, present
transcript of the old cross ONLY after she has answered questions with
contradictory answers in the new cross. If her cross is over, file an
application to recall the witness giving grounds such as you had misplaced
the cross and therefore there was a delay or invent some reason... But you
must get the old cross before her and marked it as an Exhibit. The
procedure described here by me is based upon provisions under some
sections under the Indian Evidence Act but as I am not an advocate, I am
not too sure which section, etc.
winning defamation case against false 498A
Overview: False 498A filed by wife: Sept. 2013 Acquittal Verdict: March
2018 Got ex parte divorce : April 2018
Religion: Hindu Wife: Employed Me (husband): left job Now, i am planning
to file defamation (both civil and criminal) and maintenance case against
her. pls advice what are the chances of winning these cases and how much
time (approx.) it takes. Are there any other cases that I can file against
her?
As you said you are acquitted from 498a then you have valid ground for
filing defamation case. As far as time is concerned it depends upon the
court where case is filled and how case is presented. You can maintenance
form under section 125 of Crpc. You can file Perjury section 340 crpc.
Can we move an application u/s 340 crpc after judgment
Respected All Please help can we move an application under section 340 Cr
P C after Judgment, if yes in what time limit? If the competent Court send
it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction then who are the
parties, I and Accused person or Government and Accused person, if
parties are Government and Accused person How can I become party?
Regards
Dear Mr. Jain, Your query has got an answer in the provisions of the
section 340 Cr.P.C itself, especially if subsection (2) of the section in
question, if given a thorough reading, will explain as to what can be done
and when and how etc. Thus, the answer for your 1st query can be seen
through this, the answer for your 2nd query is that it depends on the
complainant who makes a complaint to include whom as a party. Adv
Kalaiselvan,
People have HI FI imagination and understanding about the provisions of
section 340. Normally the cases decided by courts are evidence / case
against accused not proved., so it does not mean false evidence and hence
no PERJURY.
Respected Shri Kalaiselvan Ji Sir, Very thanks for your reply and I had gone
through the section 340 CrPC but do not find my answer and I here by
request you to please find the facts of my case: I am fighting with a greedy
person and have filed the civil suit for recovery in the Court and the same
is in the stage of evidence of mine. The same greedy person who is a
Senior Citizen moves an application before the Senior Citizen Tribunal
(who is headed by Sub Divisional Magistrate and a close friend of that
greedy person) by not disclosing the detail of civil suit and makes illegal
and wrongful charges of Strong Armed, Threatening of Kidnapping,
Threatening of Attempt to Murder, against me and my father who is also
Senior Citizen for illegally harassing and disturbing him (greedy person) for
money and and with a prayer to take strong and legal action against me as
he is in fear of his life. The Tribunal while closing the eyes admits that
application and one of the officers of the Tribunal called on my mobile and
using hash language and ordered me and my father to present before the
Tribunal on the date specified I then go through the Senior Citizen Act and
came to know that The Tribunal has no power to admit these types of
application as Tribunal have only power to admit the application if made
for the claim of maintenance with too against relative or family members.
So I prepared my statement in writing and submit the same before the
Tribunal on the date specified and disclosed the detail of civil suit by
attaching the copy of one order of the case. When Tribunal asked that
greedy person regarding this civil case he specific record his statement
before the Tribunal that he does not know about this civil case filed my me
in any manner whatsoever and then Tribunal gives Judgment in favor of
mine by dismissing the application with the specific reason that as I have
brought detail of Civil Case before the Tribunal and the matter is still
pending so Tribunal cannot proceed further. The Greedy person
continuously harassing me to withdrawal my case by the help of local
police. When I check the records I found that the same greedy person filed
his written statement with affidavit by denying all the facts in the Civil
Court one month before he made the application to Tribunal. Now I got all
the certified copies of written statement & affidavit filed by that greedy
person in Civil Suit as well as the certified copy of the Judgment passed by
the Tribunal in which Tribunal specific mentioned regarding the statement
of that greedy person that he made the statement before the tribunal that
“he does not know about this civil case filed my me in any manner
whatsoever” I have also various other very strong certified documentary
evidences that greedy person have intentionally hides and gives wrong &
false information to various public servants which relates to the subject
matter so as to cause injury to me and my family members. Also I have one
telephone conversation in which the son of that greedy person specifically
threatened me that they have filed the above application as I have filed
the civil case. It about 13 Months after the judgment as of now and that
greedy person continuously tortured and harassing me with the help of
local police and miscreant person and now it Impossible for me to stop
that greedy person. As per section 340 CrPC I have to make the application
to file the complaint or make a enquiry before the same Tribunal in which
concern Sub Divisional Magistrate is his friend and there is every possibility
that the concern Tribunal can not take any action, so you are requested to
please guide me Can I move an application under section 340 Cr P C after
Judgment, if yes in what time limit? Can I am bound to move an
application under section 340 Cr P C before the same Tribunal? Can I have
any alternative to file application under section 340 before any Judicial
Magistrate so as to file the criminal complaint against that greedy person
and become party? Or any other Alternative Very Thanks and waiting for
your valuable advice…

read the section carefully 340. Procedure in cases mentioned in section

195.
(1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any
Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an
inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause
(b) of sub- section
(1) of section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation
to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a
document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court,
such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks
necessary,-
(a) record a finding to that effect;
(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;
(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;
(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such
Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non- bailable and the Court thinks it
necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and
(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such
Magistrate.
(2) The power conferred on a Court by sub- section
(1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court has neither
made a complaint under sub- section
(1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of
such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is
subordinate within the meaning of sub- section (4) of section 195. (3) A
complaint made under this section shall be signed,- (a) where the Court
making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the
Court may appoint; (b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the
Court. (4) In this section," Court" has the same meaning as in section 195.
Madras High Court M.Sudalaimani ..Revision vs S.Umaiyal on 20
December, 2012 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20/12/2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE
M.VENUGOPAL CRL.R.C.(MD)No.920 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2011
M.Sudalaimani ..

Revision Petitioner Vs. S.Umaiyal .. Respondent/Respondent

Prayer Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 of of Cr.P.C. r/w
401 Cr.P.C. to call for the records relating to the order dated 05.09.2011 in
Crl.M.P.NO.1187 of 2011 on the file of the Learned Principal District Munsif
cum Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi and set aside the same and pass such
other or further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case. !For Petitioner ... Mr. V.R.Shanmuganathan
For Respondent ... Mr. S.Murugan * * * * * :ORDER
The Petitioner has focused the instant Criminal Revision Petition before
this Court as against the order dated 05.09.2011 in Criminal M.P.No.1187
of 2011 passed by the Learned Principal District Munsif - cum - Judicial
Magistrate, Karaikudi.
2. The Learned Principal District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi,
while passing the order dated 05.09.2011 in Crl.M.P.No.1187 of 2011 has,
among other things, observed that "... As per Section 340 of Cr.P.C., the
court must satisfy that it is expedient in interest of justice the enquiry
should be made into the offence under Section 195 of Indian Penal Code.
On plain reading of the above Section clearly shows that satisfaction of the
court is necessary that the respondent intentionally and knowingly gave
false evidence. Moreover, the evidence cannot be looked into piecemeal.
The whole evidence has to be considered. Moreover, it must be shown
that the evidence of the respondent before this Court knowingly gave false
evidence. In this case, it is already discussed in the foregoing paragraphs
that there is no finding in C.C.No.197 of 2002 that this respondent gave
false evidence etc" and resultantly, dismissed the petition.
3.Assailing the correctness of the dismissal order passed by the trial court
in Cr.M.P.No.1187 of 2011 dated 05.09.2011, the Revision
Petitioner/Petitioner has filed the instant Revision before this Court as an
Aggrieved Person.
4.According to the Learned counsel for the Petitioner/ Husband, the trial
court has committed an error in dismissing Crl.M.P.No.1187 fo 2011
without appreciating the facts in issue in a proper and real perspective.
5. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that the
trial court should have seen that the Respondent/ Wife has given false
evidence and the same has been established as per categorical finding
rendered in the judgment in M.C.No.05 of 2003 dated 07.12.2010.
6. Advancing his argument, it is the contention of the Learned counsel for
the Petitioner that the Respondent/Wife as P.W.1 in M.C.No.05 of 2003
has given a false evidence that the Petitioner/Husband married one
Premalatha. However, the said statement has been found to be a false one
by the Judgment in C.C.No.179 of 2002 dated 06.05.2010 passed by the
Learned Principal District Munsif - cum - Judicial Magistrate,Karaikudi.
7. Yet another plea taken on behalf of the Petitioner is that the
Respondent/Wife as P.W.1 has suppressed the fact that her daughters viz,
(the Second and Third Petitioners) in M.C.No.05 of 2003 are majors.
However, a claim for maintenance for them also has been made in that
proceeding.
8. That apart, the Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
Learned Principal District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi,
without ordering notice to the Respondent/Wife in Crl.M.P.No.1187 of
2011 and without holding any enquiry as contemplated under Section 340
of Cr.P.C. has dismissed the petition erroneously.
9. Lastly, it is the contention of the Learned counsel for the
Petitioner/Husband that the Principal District Munsif-cum-Judicial
Magistrate, Karaikudi is bound to receive the document in evidence and to
conduct a Preliminary Enquiry and then record a finding before proceeding
further to lodge a complaint under law.
10. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Husband draws the attention of
this Court that the Respondent/Wife along with her two daughters as
Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 filed M.C.N. 05 of 2003 on the file of the Learned
Principal District Munsif - cum - Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi (under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from the Revision
Petitioner/Husband who was figured as Respondent therein). As a matter
of fact the Respondent/Wife in M.C.No.05 of 2003 has claimed monthly
maintenance of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only) for herself and for
her daughters she claimed a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only)
per month towards maintenance.
11. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that in M.C.No.05 of
2003, the Respondent/Wife has been examined as P.W.1 and that she has
deposed that she is employed in a private school getting a salary of
Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand only) and from her salary income she is
not able to fulfill her essential needs/requirements.
12. Also, the Learned counsel for the Petitioner invites the attention of this
Court to the evidence of Respondent/Wife as P.W.1 in M.C.No.05 of 2003
to the fact that where she has stated that she can produce her salary
certificate before the court and also, to a suggestion she has stated that it
is not correct to state that she is getting an income of Rs.7,000/-(Rupees
seven thousand only). Furthermore, the Learned counsel for the Petitioner
submits that the Respondent/Wife gets a salary of Rs.7,000/-(Rupees
seven thousand only) as per Exs.R.9 to R.10 respectively.
13. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that in the order dated
07.12.2010 in M.C.No.05 of 2003 in paragraph No.11, it is clearly
mentioned that 'Admittedly, the first Petitioner is working as a Teacher in
Alagappan Matriculation School and according to P.W.1, she is getting
Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) per month as salary. On the side of
the respondent R.W.2 Kumarappan who is the Head Master of above
school was examined. Ex.R.11 is the salary certificate of the First
Petitioner. It can be seen from Ex.R.11 that the First Petitioner was getting
a salary of Rs.6840/-(Rupees six thousand eight hundred and forty only) in
the month of December 2007. R.W.2 in his evidence has clearly stated in
the year 2003 the salary of the First Petitioner was Rs.3384/- (Rupees three
thousand three hundred and eighty four only) and she was getting a take
home salary of Rs.2978/-(Rupees two thousand nine hundred and seventy
eight only) in the year 2003. This would clearly falsify the evidence of
P.W.1 that she is getting Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand only) at the time
of filing of this petition etc. and therefore, it is clear that the Respondent
(First Petitioner in M.C.No.5 of 2003) has clearly given false evidence and
rendered herself for perjury.
14. Apart from the above, the Learned counsel for the Petitioner refers to
paragraph No.7 of the order dated 05.09.2011 in Cr.M.P.No.1187 of 2011
wherein it is inter alia observed that ''In this case, this Court has perused
all the documents etc" and further it is also observed that there is no
finding in C.C.No.179 of 2002 that this Respondent/Wife gave false
evidence and as also opined that the facts not proved and the facts
disproved are different and in this case the facts stated by the respondent
in the evidence were not disproved and so this Court cannot come to a
conclusion that prima facie there is a case for perjury'. According to the
Learned counsel for the Petitioner, these observations of the Learned
Principal District Munsif - cum - Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi are not per
se correct in the eye of law.
15. Expatiating his submissions, the Learned counsel for the Petitioner puts
forward an argument that before alleging the complaint under Section 340
of Cr.P.C. the following two conditions are to be followed namely
1) a person must have given false evidence
2) In the opinion of Court it is expedient in the interest of justice to make
an enquiry. Added further, it is the stand of the Petitioner that the
Principal District Munsif - cum - Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi has failed to
take note of the fact that there is a prima facie evidence to show that the
Respondent/Wife has given false evidence.
16. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Principal
District Munsif - cum - Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, has not issued notice
to the Respondent/Wife in Crl.M.P.No.1187 of 2011 and straight away he
has heard the matter and dismissed the petition without conducting a
Preliminary Enquiry and indeed, the Petitioner/Husband's counsel alone
has been heard in Criminal Miscellaneous petition.
17. The categorical stand of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner has not
been given an opportunity to let in evidence in Crl.M.P.No.1187 of 2011
before the Principal District Munsif - cum - Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi.
The Learned counsel for the Petitioner refers to Section 191 of Indian Penal
Code which runs as under: "Giving false evidence: - Whoever, being legally
bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or
being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any
statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false
or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence". Also, he has
made a reference to Section 193 of Indian Penal Code which speaks of
"Punishment for false evidence" which enjoins thus: Whoever
intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or
fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a
judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
descripttion for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be
liable to fine and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence
in any other case, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
descripttion for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be
liable to fine"
18. Repelling the contentions of the Learned counsel for the Petitioner, the
Learned counsel for the Respondent/Wife contends that the Criminal
Revision Petition in Crl.RC.No. 920 of 2011 filed by the Petitioner/Husband
as against the impugned order dated 05.09.2011 in CrlM.P.No.1187 of 2011
is not in limini maintainable in law because of the fact that as against the
order dated 05.09.2011 in Crl.M.P.No.1187 of 2011 the Petitioner is to file
an Appeal as per Section 341 of Cr.P.C.
19. Coming to the merits of the matter, the Learned counsel for the
Respondent/Wife submits that there is no clear finding in M.C.No.05 of
2003 that the Respondent/Wife has given false evidence and in fact, the
whole evidence tendered by the Respondent/Wife before appropriate
proceedings belonging to be taken note of and her evidence cannot be
viewed in isolation or in piecemeal manner.
20. Further, the Learned counsel for the Respondent/Wife brings it to the
notice of this Court that the Respondent/Wife filed a salary certificate in
the year 2007 in 2002 what has been the salary received by the
Respondent/Wife is to be seen and for the year 2002 salary in respect of
the Respondent/Wife no certificate has been given.
21.According to the Learned counsel for the Respondent/Wife in
C.C.No.179 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Munsif cum-Judicial
Magistrate, Karaikudi the Revision Petitioner/Husband has been arrayed
as the first accused along with the two accused namely A2 and A3 and the
Revision Petitioner finally has been convicted for an offence under
Sections 498(A) of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and
sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and also has been
directed to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for three months for offences under Section 498(A) of IPC
and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of
Rs.500/- in default. But in fact, Rigorous Imprisonment for three months in
respect of an offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and for the
sentences were ordered to run concurrently. However, A2 and A3 were
found not guilty under Sections 498(A) and 494 of IPC and Section 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act and were acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.
22. The Learned counsel for the Respondent/Wife submits that the
Revision Petitioner/Husband has been compulsorily retired from service
and he was employed as the Sub Inspector of Police (On Technical Side).
Further, it is the contention of the Learned counsel for the Respondent
that examination of a Party/Litigant is not necessary and also notice to
other side is not necessary and it is open to the Learned Principal District
Munsif - cum - Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi to deal with Crl.M.P.No.1187
of 2011 in accordance with law.
23. By way of reply, the Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Husband
submits that an Appeal can be filed if the order passed by the Learned
Principal District Munsif - cum - Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi in
Crl.M.P.No.1187 of 2011 dated 05.09.2011 is a Full Fledged One and since
the impugned order in Crl.M.P.No.1187 of 2011 is not a Full Fledged one
viz, without hearing the other side then it will not take away a party's right
to file Revision, wherein the propriety, legality or correctness of the order
passed by the Learned Principal District Munsif - cum - Judicial Magistrate,
Karaikudi can be challenged in the eye of law.
24. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Husband contends that the
Respondent/Wife is necessarily to speak the truth and in fact, she has
given false evidence in the proceedings in M.C.No. 05 of 2003 mentioning
that she gets only Rs.2,000/- as salary in her avocation as Teacher in a
private school, when in fact she has been earning more than Rs.2,000/-.
25.It is to be noted that the ingredients of Section 340 of Cr.P.C. apply to
all proceedings in all courts de hors whether the matter in a civil court in
which the purported offence mentioned in Section 195 of Indian Penal
Code was committed, was a criminal case or a civil case. The purpose of
Section 340 of Cr.P.C is to provide a safeguard against vexatious or
frivolous prosecution. In fact Section 34 of Cr.P.C. and Section 195 of IPC
are closely inter linked and have healthy construction. They should be read
together as opined by this Court.
26. It cannot be gain said that before initiating an action under Section 340
of Cr.P.C., a Court of Law satisfied that the litigation sought to be
proceeded against deliberately, intentionally committed offence. No
wonder, Section 340 of Cr.P.C. is intended to be complimentary to Section
195 of IPC in the considered opinion of this Court. The power as per
Section 340 of Cr.P.C. is to be exercised with care and caution that too,
where it is considered necessary in the 'interests of justice'. Every false
statement averred in a plaint filed or in a written statement may not invite
a prosecution as per decision in Vimla Vs. Ranjini Murugan reported in
1988 (2) Crimes 124, 131(Mad).
27. One cannot ignore an important fact that the ingredients of Section
340 of Cr.P.C. are not permitted to be employed as hand maid of private
persons to achieve their revengeful attitude against another person. If a
party seeking to invoke the benefit of Section 340 of Cr.P.C. is desirous of
achieving its oblique motive indirectly, then a care must be taken to see
that a court of law is not employed for that as a tool for achieving their
own ends.
28. First and foremost, it is to be seen that whether a person has
deliberately/intentionally has given false evidence. Secondly, it is to be
looked into whether it will be a expedient in the interest of justice to
initiate action against him or her in the manner known to law. In short, a
court of law should first see whether a person has tendered evidence
before the court has contradicted his earlier statement which is a false
one.
29. There is no legal mandatory duty cast upon a court of law to provide an
opportunity of hearing to the Opposite Party/ Accused against whom the
Learned Judicial Magistrate might commence prosecution proceedings, as
per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pritesh Vs. State of Maharashtra
reported in AIR 2002 SC 236.
30. Really speaking, a Respondent in a proceeding under Section 340 of
Cr.P.C. is not an accused. It is to be remembered that in a Preliminary
Enquiry under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. the other side is not entitled to cross
examine the Petitioner's witnesses, as per decision in Hridayanshy
Bhattarcharjee Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2003 CrlJ 624(626)
(Jhar).
31. At this stage, this Court pertinently points out that an order passed
under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. is an Appealable one. Furthermore, that
appeal is right of a Party/Litigant as per decision reported in AIR 1935
Madras at page 673. Also, an Appeal against the order passed under
Section 340 of Cr.P.C. is to be filed before the Competent Forum as
specified under Code of Criminal Procedure. Moreover, the Appellate
Court can take evidence and also additional evidence as per decision
reported in 38 CrlJ at page 561. On consideration of all facts, the Appellate
court should see whether there is merit. Otherwise, it will not proceed as
per decision reported in AIR 1925 All at page 544.
32. As far as the present case on hand, this Court is of the considered view
that as against the order dated 05.09.2011 in Crl.M.P.No.1187 of 2011
passed by the Learned Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Karaikudi, the Petitioner/Husband is to prefer only an Appeal before the
Appropriate/Competent Forum (not withstanding the fact whether it is a
Full Fledge One or otherwise). As such, the instant Revision Petition filed
by the Revision Petitioner/Husband as against the impugned order dated
05.09.2011 in Crl.M.P.No.1187 of 2011 passed by the Learned Principal
District Munsif-cum- Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi is not per se
maintainable in law. Viewed in that perspective, the Criminal Revision
Petition fails.
33. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed as not
maintainable. Liberty is granted to the Petitioner/Husband to prefer an
Appeal before the Competent Forum as per Section 341 of Cr.P.C. and to
seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law, if so advised. As and
when the Appeal is filed by the Petitioner/Husband, then it is open to the
respective parties to raise all Factual and Legal Pleas before the
Appropriate Forum and to seek remedy in the manner known to law.
125 maint & 498a case action based on dv judgment
Hi, My xwife had 498a/506/DP4&6 case + 125 Maintenance case + DV case
on me, my parents and brother (there are few contradictions in her own
allegation in her own statements). And she submitted false affidavits also
saying she has no job/no source of income and we have all proofs of her
job procured with fake experience and working as unmarried. DV case –
magistrate initially removed parents and brother from respondent list (no
reason given on final judgment for this which I guess no grounds on them
as they live in different city). And case went ex-parte as I could not get any
notice as I am on work deputation to different city. But thank to God and
the well learned lady magistrate who dismissed all her prayers and DV
petition on grounds of no jurisdiction and no valid reason to grant any of
the exorbitant prayers to extort me in my absence.
My queries…
1) 125 Maintenance case - Came to know recently there is also 125 maint
case pending long time where she made similar prayers as in DV case.
Same allegations as in DV and 498a cases. Pending long time as on this
case only I am the respondent so no information/notice to my
parents/brother. NOW CAN my parents/brother submit a counter as third
party with judgment copy of DV case asking for dismissal of this case also?
can they counter as thirdparty as allegations were levelled on them also?
2) Can my parents/brother file perjury for xwife’s false affidavit where she
is saying she has no job in the 125Maintenance case as third party?
3) DV case is dismissed 3 months back. Can my parents/brother file perjury
for false affidavit on DV case now to the same court or any court as third
party? They were initially listed as respondents on this case.
4) Can the judgment of DV case help in 498a quash also as it got dismissed
on grounds of jurisdiction?
Thanks & Regards Raj
1. If she is working and you have some proof. File CrPC 91 application as
well as CrPC 340 application for call of records and perjury simultaneously.
2. Only one petition of 340 can be filed. 3. No. 4. No. The grounds need to
be independent for 498a quashing.
Dear Sir, The same case is with my friend which is yet to be decided. will
you please post or send the full case of dv matter to me for quoting the
same in his dv case wherein his father mother and sister has been roped
False affidavit given by wife in familycourt in 125 crpc
respected sir,
false evidence deposed as affidavite given by petitioner (wife) in the case
of 125 Crpc.
1. That in the case of 125 crpc wife gave false affidavite, that she is not
working in any organisation and there is not any sourses of income and
same case has been disposed off and allowed and direction to respondent
to give mentinence.
2.That as per information collected by respondent that she is working in
government department and drawing salay.
3. That I filed an anpplication in family court U/s 340 crpc that she deposed
false affidavit in court but the family court refused to received the same
application and asked that it is family court and not mentinable the crpc
and same applcialtion.
4. now my query is that what should i do in this condition and give some
authority of apex court that show allow to the same thanking you What
are the stages in perjury case?
1) I filed last week against wife a case u/s 340 read with section 195B of
CRPC and section 193, 196, 200, 209, 211, 463 & 471 of IPC. ......................
2) There was a order of salary attachment from Family Court, Surat in Apr-
09 which was cancelled by same Family Court, Surat in Jul-09
......................
3) However wife went to High Court, Gujarat in the year Jan-11 and in her
petition to High Court said employer is not carrying out salary attachment
order. ......................
4) High Court gave order that if there is such order Employer should carry
out such order. ......................
5) So I filed this perjury petition in her 125(3) at Family Court, Surat
......................
6) Please help in letting us know what are the stages in Perjury
petition?...How will the case proceed? ......................
7) If anyone has relevant judgements please provide the same
......................
8) Also I have a judgement from SC which states that Direct evidence
precludes inquiry ......................
9) Any other information which anyone would like to share would be
appreciated ....Thank you all in advance Never Give Up.
dear friend i understand ur anxiety. but u know the law r approch legla aid
centers in court premises. they guide u. other wise u study suprem court
family judgement latest and follow the rest. last and not least u approach
family court advocate, they take care of ur case. money is not a crieteria.
don't loose the case if ur gain from it.
Crpc 125 & crpc 340
My wife filed CrpC 125 on with false substantial fact that she hasn't been
earning. She was able to get interim maintenance in her favour as I didn't
have the evidence to prove her wrong at that time.
Later on, I got her employment evidence and filed Crpc 127 along with
Perjury CrpC 340 against her.
CrpC 127 is being considered but Hon'ble Judge is saying that its premature
for Perjury as there hasn't been evidence/cross examination stage as yet.
He gave reference of some Marwah case.
My lawyer also seems to be agree with him but I feel it's being MATERIAL
FACT and Interim award has been won by award so Perjury should be
maintainable.
Please suggest. Thanks
When to file perjury
Respected members, It's a crpc 125 a maintenance case.... I have few
questions regarding perjury..
1. The petitioner stated that she was unemployed and unable to maintain
herself is the main ground.
2. After filing the case, subsequently after 3 months the petitioner started
working in a IT company with decent salary..
3. At the chief examination and cross examination she suppressed the
above said material fact and she deliberately lied before the trail court.
4. The petitioner also filed an interim petition after 3 years from the date
of filing the main mc petition.
5. The petitioner's council also confronted a forged documents to the
respondent while he was cross examined though the doucments we're not
marked but it came in the deposition.
6. The human resource manager given witness that the petitioner is
working in the company.
7. The bank manager given witness that the petitioner is holding an
account and the said account is the salaried account, and for last 3 years
the salary is getting deposited into the said account. Now the step came
for arguments, Kindly suggest me for the below queries.. Can I file perjury
after the competition of this case as a private complaint ? Or Is it
mandatory to file perjury while the case is pending? Regards Pardha
 Perjury before ws or perjury alongwith ws in dv how?
Dear Friends, My wife filed a false DV case against me. Earlier she issued a
legal notice to me citing a false DV incidence to me through one lawyer.
But she changed the lawyer while filing the actual DV petition in which she
cited the different version (including the place of the incidence) of the false
DV incidence including the material surrounding the situations. I can
clearly show these two differences which amount to the actual substance
of the merit of the case. One incidence cannot happen at two different
places. I am due to file the WS to her petition. Could you please help me
suggest how do I file the case of perjury before or alongwith WS?
Please help me. Deep
The averments mentioned by her in the legal notice are not on oath and
hence do not constitute perjury. However the change in her stand shall
surely help you in proving her case to be false and an afterthought.
Dear Friends, In a affidavit of interim my brothers wife mentions that my
father's pension is Rs.15000/- but my is not alive now and shows the rents
as income and salary as Rs.35000/-.the house is not registered on my
brother's name.at the time of petition in 125 crpc my father was alive. she
mentioned the same in the MP.she knows very well that my father is not
alive and i can prove that in court. does this helps me in any way or in filing
a perjury. thank you.
Cross examination techniques- 498a, dv, crpc125, divorce etc Read more
at:
Cross Examination Techniques- 498a, DV, CrPC125, Divorce etc The
important thing to cross opposite party in a cross examination is to prove
her false statement in her affidavit which can enable us to file perjury case
under 340 CrPC. Remember apart from the documentary evidence which
you might be having, cross is the most important step in cases of
matrimonial cases because most of the incidents happen within the four
walls of the house and for which there may not be any proof or evidence.
So your advocate must do the cross in such a way so as to bring out
reasonable doubt in the mind of judge about the character of the wife and
to disapprove her statements. Preparation for a cross examination is very
time consuming and an involved process. Most of the advocates asks
questions on-the-fly and thinks that is the correct way to cross.
No…Selecting each and every question for cross is a very involved process.
The important thing to note in a cross is to bring out her lies. Since every
complaint is different hence there cannot be a general formula for
questions. It has to be prepared on a case to case basis. You need to be
very clear to what question you are expecting from the other party and
then frame the question accordingly. Never ask straight questions. Your
opposite party should never know why you are asking a particular
question. Never ask the question for which she knows the facts clearly.
Never ask the questions in the sequence of the complaint as she will be
able to tell the answer like a story. Prepare the questions in sequence of
the complaint (minimum400+) and then categorize the question in various
topics like perjury, desertion, cruelty, maintenance, dowry etc. So this way
questions gets shuffled. Now after first level of shuffling again shuffle the
questions so that no two adjacent questions should have any similarity in
any manner, sequence, event or subject. You must be present with your
advocate during the cross to assist him for any doubt or clarifications. Do
all the ground work your self of preparing questions.
Example1: Statement from a 498A FIR: “my parent have given 40
sovereigns of jewellery worth 40 lakh Rs to my husband during the
marriage”
Your Advocate to your wife: Madam can you give the exact breakup the
jewelry?
 Opposite party-Wife: She is going to fumble as it is impossible to give the
breakup which is going to match 40 sovereigns.
Your Advocate to your FIL: Sir, May I know what profession you are doing?
Opposite party-FIL: I have a grocery store.
Your Advocate to your FIL: Where do you buy the groceries for the shop.
Opposite party-FIL: From city market.
Your Advocate to your FIL: How often do you buy grocery?
Opposite party-FIL: I buy every week.
Your Advocate to your FIL: Good. How much do you buy grocery every
week?
Opposite party-FIL: Approximately 10000/- per week..
Your Advocate to your FIL: Good. Do you have receipts for all this? Do you
maintain it?
Opposite party-FIL: Yes, I file all the bills in the file and maintain it.
Your Advocate to your FIL: Sir, May I know you have the bills/receipt for
the 40 lakhs jewelry you had claimed to be given to your SIL.
Opposite party-FIL: Fumbles, No I don’t have.
Your Advocate to your FIL: Sir, May I know even for 10000/- you are
maintaining file but you do not have receipt for 40 lakh jewelry!!
Opposite party-FIL: No answer.
Your Advocate to your FIL: Sir, I suggest to you that you had given false
complaint in the FIR that 40 lakh was given. I state that no such jewelry
was given to SIL or to his family.
Opposite party-FIL: No..No We have given.
Example2: Your Advocate to your wife: Madam you had written in the
complaint that you had given a gas connection to your husband as dowry?
Opposite party-Wife: Yes.
Your Advocate to your wife: Madam can you tell the court from which
agency you had purchased the gas connection?
 Opposite party-Wife: I don’t remember.
Your Advocate to your wife: Can you atleast tell us from which company
you had purchased?
Opposite party-Wife: I don’t remember.
Your Advocate to your wife: Can you tell us who used to deliver cylinder
to your house?
Opposite party-Wife: Gas agency boys.
Your Advocate to your wife: Madam can you tell us who used to receive
the cylinder in your house?
Opposite party-Wife: I used to receive at house.
Your Advocate to your wife: Madam normally they give a receipt after
payment? Where agency name is mentioned. Is it correct?
Opposite party-Wife: Yes.
Your Advocate to your wife: I state that your husband only has purchased
the gas connection for XXX Agency and you are lying that you had
purchased the gas connection and you are unable to tell the name of the
agency also even though you were receiving the cylinder at house from the
said agency.
Opposite party-Wife: Fumbles. No…No We only had purchased the gas
connection.
Example3: We have given a washing machine to husband.
Your Advocate to your wife: Can you tell us the exact cost of the washing
machine?
Opposite party-Wife: 15000/-
Your Advocate to your wife: Can you tell us the brand of the washing
machine?
Opposite party-Wife: XXX
Your Advocate to your wife: Can you tell us the size of the washing
machine?
 Opposite party-Wife: XXX
Your Advocate to your wife: Can you tell us the in which shop you
purchased this washing machine?
Opposite party-Wife: Fumbles…I don’t remember.
Your Advocate to your wife: Can you tell us the date on which you brought
this washing machine?
Opposite party-Wife: I don’t remember.
Your Advocate to your wife: How you paid for purchasing this washing
machine?
Opposite party-Wife: Cash Your Advocate to your wife:
Madam. Look at this receipt. Your husband with his savings purchased the
washing machine and here is the receipt in his name. Request the judge to
mark the receipt in R series.
Example 4: We have born the entire expenses of the marriage.
Your Advocate to your wife: Can you tell us the exact cost/expense of the
marriage? Opposite party-Wife: 10 lakhs rs.
Your Advocate to your wife: Can you give us the break up of each
expense…at least broadly
Opposite party-Wife: She will fumble.
Your Advocate to your wife: Can you tell us the salary of your father at the
time of marriage.
Opposite party-Wife: 10000 per month
Your Advocate to your wife: Can you tell us your husbands salary at the
time of marriage?
Opposite party-Wife: Jumps suddenly!!! 50000/- rs per month.
Your Advocate to your wife: Madam, I suggest to you that since your
family were relatively poor and expressed inability to bear marriage
expense and hence most the marriage expense was done by your
husbands family. Opposite party-Wife: No…No
 when wife complains in FIR that from fith day of Marriage I was being
harrassed by inlaws for dowry,MIL took away all jewellary within few days
of marriage,for few occassion jewellary was given then it was fully blocked
by MIL,Not happy with my Inlaws ill treatment ,Husband family tried to
burn me by keeping gas open,Brother inlaw tried to molest etc etc
Perjury in supreme court for using forged document
Respected experts, I am in matrimonial dispute with my spouse. My
spouse is a contract employee in Delhi whereas my job in Chandigarh is
non transferable. I m eldest of four sibling and sole bread earner of family
but my spouse is forcing me to leave my family and settle in Delhi.
Relatives made all efforts to convince her but of no avail. thereafter I filed
sec 9 HM Act RCR in Chandigarh. In order to harass me to fulfil her
demand, she has filed 125 CrPC and DV complaint in Delhi by submitting
false facts and incidents but she has filed 498A etc in Ghaziabad, UP as crpc
provision of anticipatory bail are not applicable in UP. Fortunately criminal
complaint was not registered by UP police after long sessions of mediation.
My spouse has filed transfer petition in Supreme court in April 2017 which
was rejected by the honble court in first hearing itself. my wife has used a
forged rent agreement along with her petition to support her residence
claim. I have Delhi police reply under RTI Act to establish that rent
agreement was forged. Since, the transfer petition has already been
dismissed by honble court. my queries are:
1. Whether application can be filed for perjury in Honble Supreme Court
as in Chandra prabha vs Anil Kumar verma, honble Supreme court ordered
one week jail.
2. Whether there is any time limit or any other condition to file any such
application
 Why do you prolong litigation, with a view to seek revenge, when
forgetting any incident as unfortunate can bring you more happiness,
comfort and peace in life at your age.
@GLN Prasad, sir I am agree with your well intended and wise advise and
forgot about prolonging even no intention of being a part of litigation but
how can one forget if litigation is still going on and opposition party is
trying his level best to ensure maximum harassment and humiliation of
me, my ailing mother and younger brother.
Can i file perjury
I have my hearing on 21 Dec for 125 Crpc.
1.I filed a Divorce petition on April 2010.She filed a maintainence case on
Nov 2010.My wife has mentioned that she left her matrimonial home on
22Feb 2010 due to DV.We both only used to stay. I was working on ship
prior to her leaving home, i can prove that with my immigration stamp on
my passport n flight tkts.
2.Also she has stated a false allegation, that she was forced to pay 2.9 lacs
from her father on my account to book a flat and she attached a bank
deposit slip. The actual fact is that as i was on ship,I told my father in law
to sell my car.The buyer paid
2.9 lacs cash to dad in law, the same was deposited by my wife.I have a
written statement from the buyer that he paid 2.9 lacs rs cash to my father
in law in order to purchase my car, also other forms signed by my father in
law Form 30.
3.She also said that she paid 1 lac rs to the builder from her account to
book a falt on my name. Actually i told my father in law to sell some of my
jewellery ,given by my parents to book a flat for early discount as i was on
ship.he sold the same and deposited the money on his daughters account,
from where it was paid to the builder. I am not yet able to prove the same,
as i am yet looking for the those jewellery certificates.The money was paid
in cheque by the jewellery shop to her account.
4. I am suffering from 2 slip discs on my lumbar spine, i have the MRI
reports and other reports from other ortho doctors.
5. Also as i am in merchant navy she has asked for an alimony of 78k per
month. my job is contractual and generally go to ship less often due to my
back problem.
6. I want to file a case for all these false allegations. Should i file 340 Crpc
or what should i do.
7. I am mentally tired. I have no 498A case pending against me. But she
has mentioned physical n mental torture in her 125 crpc petition.
very good case for perjury, contact a honest criminal lawyer and file
perjury and also divorce thru a matri lawyer.
Filing perjury is serious matter and can not be taken at any bodys sweet
will casually. You have made allegations which may be true or not . You
have to prove them before court and only after evidence is accepted by
court and judgment delivered than only perjury will arise not before that.
Filing section 340 crpc perjury case against wifeDear all. Please advice My
wife filed section 125 crpc case claiming maintenance and made all kinds
of false allegations. For 3-5 allegations she made are false and i have
enough evidence to disapprove it. Section 125 is filled in Bhavnagar and I
reside at Chennai. We both resided together at chennai. Please advice in
which court should I file the case for perjury. My first hearing is scheduled
on 9th February, Should I respond to the maintenance case and file perjury
case alongside in Bhavnagar court? Or would I have to wait for the
maintenance case to get disposed of? Can I also file writ petition for
speedy trial of the maintenance case? Regards
Settle the mc case,
Quash 125 crpc
 wife file 125 CrPc & Divorce on grounds of cruelty in 2 separate FC’s. Can I
file Quash in AP HC on these grounds. She was working for 1+ year and
concealed this from the court & lied during trial stated that she is MBA
intern in XYZ Ltd & not employee. Her Provided Fund for 1 year later
marked as exhibit for XYZ ltd. She has done perjury and is not entitled any
Interim or final relief. She filed maintenance after 1 month of filing divorce
on grounds of cruelty. As per AP HC Hindu Marriage and Divorce Rules
Section 6(i) any petition filed for divorce U/s 13 (IA) clause (i) and (ii) must
state any relief sought for custody, care & maintenance of the child. Not
submitted any proof of neglect or refusal or cruelty. I filed custody of child
U/s 12 GWOP before she filed interim in 125 and got orders for visitation
that was not followed. This is a case of alienation and not neglect. I am
willing to take both wife and daughter back unconditionally as stated in
125(4) and pay 100% of school fee.
instead of applying to HIg h Court for trabsfer or for any other relief, for
barr, it is better you file your detailed written statemet in divorce n
maintenance and put the matter for mediation
Naren wife file 125 CrPc & Divorce on grounds of cruelty in 2 separate
FC’s. Can I file Quash in AP HC on these grounds. She was working for 1+
year and concealed this from the court & lied during trial stated that she is
MBA intern in XYZ Ltd & not employee. Her Provided Fund for 1 year later
marked as exhibit for XYZ ltd. She has done perjury and is not entitled any
Interim or final relief. The chances of sucess in quashing cannot be
guaranteed on this ground. You can, however, initiate appropriate action
against her for Perjury. She filed maintenance after 1 month of filing
divorce on grounds of cruelty. As per AP HC Hindu Marriage and Divorce
Rules Section 6(i) any petition filed for divorce U/s 13 (IA) clause (i) and (ii)
must state any relief sought for custody, care & maintenance of the child.
Not submitted any proof of neglect or refusal or cruelty. That is
immaterial. Separate proceedings can be taken out for maintenance. It is
not a ground for quashing. I filed custody of child U/s 12 GWOP before she
filed interim in 125 and got orders for visitation that was not followed. This
is a case of alienation and not neglect. I am willing to take both wife and
daughter back unconditionally as stated in 125(4) and pay 100% of school
fee. You can file for Restituition of conjugal rights.. Also record emails/
messages putting on record her refusal to provide access to you. File for
Contempt of court also for non-compliance of orders.
Sir, The proceedings u/s 125 Cr.P.C. IS QUASI criminal and the question of
quashing will not arise. If you have grievance that the proceedings are
before different courts you can move only for transfer of one case to the
court where the other case is pending or to have a joint trial of both the
cases.
340 appln against wife dismissed even after family crt order
My wife filed false 498-a case, where Trial Court sentenced me to one
year. But Appellate Court turned order in my favour. Wife filed CRR in High
Court that was dismissed in first hearing. Parallelly she filed DV and
Maintenance cases.
1. Submitted false affidavit in Family court that she was not working. I
proved she was working. Family court established that she lied on
affidavit, and reduced her interim relief.
2. She went to High Court and got stay restoration on interim relief saying
she was not working.
3. CrPC 125 was disposed establishing that she lied on affidavit. But FC did
not initiate any action against wife even after filing of application to take
action against her as per law, instead granted heavy maintenance amount
on basis of 'Capacity to earn' and not actual earning even though I was
jobless due to criminal proceedings against me. Instead FC dismissed my
application to initiate against act of perjury wife saying 'Husband trying to
misuse law to implicate wife' (HAAAHHHHHH!!!). Wife is out rightly playing
with the law without any fear.
4. I filed application in HC, but HC again dismissed my application.
5. I filed application in SC... to my surprise SC said, "Husband not allowed
to harass wife". Shocking!!! It is a pity that SC at one point of time was
intolerant on lies... now does not listen to the helpless husband. Is there
anybody who can show me any law book where wife is allowed to speak
contradictory lies to suit the requirement? Where should a man go for
relief then? System of affidavit should be abolished and wife should be
allowed to speak outright lies and take undue advantage of law/courts and
misuse the law to harass husband... and compel him to take extreme
steps.
Dear Mr. , I am an engineer by profession, having stayed abroad for years.
If I had opted to abide by the sentence of conviction, that would have
ruined my career completely. It is a shame for the nation that Courts are
tolerant and liberal on such blatant and bold lies of females. On the
contrary, had I filed a small false statement, lowest court would have tried
me for perjury!!! But alas! we males are helpless. I am waiting for the day
when a judge is convicted falsely in 498-a by some female in his family.
Why should a man respect such law that exists to support a criminal wife?
Your grudges are genuine and I understand it. I have been representing
Engineers like you in all such criminal and civil matters relating to
marriage. I know how much one feel frustrated by the biased approach of
the judges. I don't want to discuss the manner these judges got the job by
political influence but the fact many of these judges are neither open-
minded nor having sufficient knowledge of law. I would suggest you to
seek dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelly as that is well
established by your acquittal order and dismissal of the criminal complaint
case. The Perjury complaint can be filled by the judge in whose court the
offence took place, as an informer you can move application u/s 340 Cr.P.C
for the court to decide and take action. The court is having discretion to do
so and by applying its discretion it usually dismisses such application
unless there exists very concrete prime facie evidence against the accused
person of committing perjury. To waste time by lodging perjury or
defamation complaint against the wife will not serve you much but by
getting dissolution of marriage you will get freedom from such person who
will be left on roads without any taker for her in future.
Court cannot dismiss S.340 CRPC is material and relevant falsehood is
established. First step is to file the S.340 application to the same court
where falsehood is spoken/tendered. This ideally should be done after the
cross examination of witness. It must be understood that the false
statement must be on oath, and must be of substantial relevance to the
matter. In your case if wife says on oath that she was not working, but
later on found to be working, then it is a material untruth as the same
would have implications on maintenance decision. It is a sufficient ground
for perjury, only thing is her employment has to be assessed whether it is
some temporary errands or permanent decent job.
Dear friend, did you try out of court settlement? Most of matrimonial
matters by that way only...you can file divorce..you already have and you
may create many grounds for that..you can file 340 and few partially cases
cases like defamation, complain case for mantle torture and so on...it will
help you to be in a position to negotiate with her on your conditions to
some extent..
May I ask you one more question? How serious does High Court or
Supreme Court take any incidence of document tampering. I have proof of
removal of exhibited document on record file in the case, and the same
was taken away because it would have exposed the contradictions of wife
in CrPC 125 in Family Court.
 Is oral reply to crpc 125 application acceptable in fc
Respected Members, I have posted earlier that My wife has filed CrPC 125
and Sec 13 against me. The case has been going on for almost one year
now. She has filed the case at her native place, However I being in defence,
am posted to another place, and my lawyer is in my hometown which is at
a third place. Now till now, I have given detailed written replies to her
applications and that have almost given me an upper hand. The 125 case
was in testimony stage and Sec 13 in Evidence stage. Now to my bad luck,
The judge got transferred, And now my wife has filed additional
applications in both Sec 125 and Sec 13 cases which the new judge has
accepted. Though the additional allegations are again without any
evidence, and I can very well refute them in my reply, But my main
probelm is that to prepare written reply, I have to take additional leave
from my base, Go to my hometown, Spend thousands on lawyer and
documents and then submit the reply, Also causing further delay in the
proceeding of the case. My wife knows that I have death of leave and also
money thats exactly why she is doing this. So now my questions are..
1. She said my salary is 92,000 in her initial application for CrPC 125 and
it's interim. This is my gross salary,
In my reply I submitted enough evidence that my take home is 25,000 and
Judge accepted this and ordered 10,000 as interim maintenance, clearly
spelling out the breakdown of my income and expanses(PF, Tax, House
Loan etc). Now in new application she has again quoted that my salary is
92,000, my dad's salary Rs 50,000, Rent income of Rs 25,000 and again
seeked Rs 50,000. The new judge has accpeted this application and asked
me to give reply.
Can I refuse to reply at all and ask her to prove what she has alleged (
Obligation of Proof on Accuser)
 or alternately Give a Verbal Reply under Oath thus saving me the precious
leave and lawyer expanses.
2. She has sought that I give affidavit that my salary is NOT 92,000, My
Dad's salary is not 50,000 and he is NOT Employed and My rental income is
NOT 25,000. I can give affidavit that my salary is NOT 92,000 but 25,000.
But I can not give Affidavit that my Dad is not employed for other reasons (
Though His salary is 15,000). Similarly I have No rental income, There is a
flat on My mothers name from which rental is 9,000. This again I CAN NOT
give affidavit that My mother is earning. Is it possible to refuse declaring
Employment and Income of my Parents in my afidavit. As such I do not fall
under HUF due to me staying away from family (Defence). And also I have
not sought any relaxation on account of giving money to my parents.
Without giving them any money, My Take Home is 25,000 which I can give
affidavit.
3. Can I say that since My Testimony and Cross is due in Next hearing for
CrPc 125, Instead of Court expecting me to reply to her application, She
can put the same questions in Cross to which as such I will reply under
Oath along with submission of evidence. I hope I have clarified my
delimma, I have all the proof and facts to discredit her applicatons, But I do
not have time or money to do so through Written Replies.
Please Advice..
Please file perjury against her affidavit in cheap, oral witness and
contradictory points for both 125 CrPC and Sec 13 HMA in the same court
respectively.
Sir, I have already prepared 6 different applications for perjury against
her, Because When it came to her Testimony, In My cross I could bring out
all her lies and she has given exactly opposite testimony then what she
said in her applications. Infact Her different applications themselves have
contradictory statement over the same allegation ( Ek Jhooth 4 baar bolo
toh 4 alag alag version bante hi hai). Now I know that the law exists that a
Judge can take Perjury cognisence on his own or on application by the
aggrevied under Sec 340 even in an ongoing case. However, The judge
simply refused to accept these applications and said that I don't have valid
reasons ( Without even glancing at the applications). All my applications
are very accurate and are based on contradictions in Her own
Applications/ Affidavits and Testimony. Can I firmly tell the Judge that He
is bound to accept these applications, And If he is refusing then he should
do it in writing by Officially receiving the application and Rejecting them (
So that I can Take Them for Review in HC) It is strange that the judge has
accepted such application at belated stage, however, once an order has
been given by the court, you either need to comply with the same or
challange that order. Oral replies are not acceptable, so you better get to
the grind and give a befitting reply.
This is the problem with the corrupted judges. If that judge is refusing that
ask him to write it to the order sheet with reason. BOMBAY HIGH COURT
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.1115/07. (Para 7 & 8) Please show this citation
to the judge. Whenever perjury will be filed it should be taken as a
separate miscellaneous criminal case. If that judge still refuses and writes
the reason in the order sheet then file Criminal Writ against that order.
Please take reference from my post for details from the links bellow: -
Shonee Sir, The applications were accepted by another ADJ as the Family
Court Judge ( Who himself is Newly posted and is totally unaware of my
case). I only got the next hearing date with instructions to give reply. On
the next date can I request the Judge to first go over my case/ Hear my
case in chamber before accepting and asking for reply of these
applications. Also I have read that Only Sec 13 petition replies are bound
to be given in writing and no other, I am not able to find that provision
now. Sir, If I have to give time and money to prepare written reply to her
each and every application That is the only reason which will force me to
break down and acceed to her demands.
If you are paying the maintenance ordered. Chill..... Let cases reach final
stage. If you wanna save time and money, let it go expartee......see wats
the final order. If its out of budget, file condonation delay and appeal ....till
then save money and time...... As you have submitted WS denying her
allegations..... You can relax. Let her divorce too go expartee if no other
cases pending. Later you can challenge both simultaneously in higher
courts. This can save time / energy+ money. Let judge do all thinking
before order. You can later appeal against everything....... Let her taste her
own venom later on...... You can bring a stay over previous orders pending
appeal.
sir, You should take this ground on your case. You should tell the judge to
proceed with evidence etc. as you file a reply etc. to this application. The
case can not be kept pending because of IAs, that would be a gross misuse
of law. Great India, Don't the HC asks to deposit the 50% of maintenance
amount before hearing the appeal against ex-parte judgements? Won't
that be a drain on the Husband?
Regards,
I have submitted all the evidence with my written reply to her initial
applications both in Crpc 125 and Sec 13. But now when the case is in
evidence/testimony and no further paperwork was envisaged me, she has
put additional applications putting more baseless claims (e.g. Initially She
alleged my income is 92,000 and I gave all breakdown and evidence of my
take home being 25,000 out of which 10,000 was ordered as interim, The
same breakdown was given for Main Crpc 125 application and Sec 13
application, Now She has come up with a figure of my income being Rs
92,000 + 50,000 Father's + 25,000 from House rent, Both of the later are
not true and are neither a basis of deciding maintenance). So is it a good
strategy to not submit reply to these applications and let the case go ex
parte?? What are the consequences/possibilities of me attending the
hearing to continue original applications but not submitting the replies to
these fresh applications?? I can afford to hold on to the case till the time
the interim/final maintenance is limited to Rs 10,000 p.m.
Multiple maintanance cases, cr pc 125 withdrawn
Dear esteemed members, Kindly advise me on this tricky situation.
Maintanance case under cr pc 125, dv case and hma 24 have been filed by
my bitter spouse along with 498a, RCR and divorce. All these cases are in
different courts of delhi. I am government servant having in hand salary of
49000. Wife is working in government sector as contract employee and
earning more then 80,000 per month. She is also more qualified than me. I
am able to track her job details and put the same for the consideration of
court in cr pc 125 and dv case. the judge scolded her and order her to
submit revised affidavit of income and expernditure in the light of
evidences produced by me. Similarly the judge in dv case asked her to
submit all her documents. Now sensing the trouble and to avoid potential
perjury. My bitter half had withdrawn cr pc 125 case by giving statement
that she is working at present. My questions are
1. Can she again fil cr pc 125/127 by stating change in circumstances or by
some other reasons.
2. How can i use her withdrwal statement in other maintanance cases. 3.
Her contract for job will expire in june 2016. Then she will be not be
working. Can she claim maintanance in dv case, hma 24 after that period.
In section 9, hma 24 and divorce summons not served to me yet.
4. What should be my strategy in future.You should without wasting time
file for Perjury in FC. Hit it hard and expose her fraud conduct to all the
courts in which she is roaming around.
 EXPOSE HER !! If your wife is earning 80k, even if she loses her contract
job she cant sit idle and extract money from you. You need to produce her
entire CV/profile to the court. In future if she applies for maintenance
(which she can under change of circumstances) then she should (or asked )
to produce reasons with proof on why she cant be reemployed again/ why
she is not getting Job. There are various HC/Apex court judgements where
maintenance is rejected to CAPABLE TO EARN/ Qualified lady.
You should file a counter Maintenance claim on her as she is earning
double your salary. Donate that money to charity !! Your wife needs HEFTY
ALIMONY from you ,
be patient....with time
she will reduce her demands
Best way to fight against false domestic violence
In order to win the false Domestic Violence case on you, one needs to
concentrate on few aspects. Read your wife's plaint again & again & also
read DIR & also again & again read her CAW plaint & FIR Copy. And also
read her 125/ Divorce/ RCR & other cases filed by her & if as a husband u
have filed Divorce/RCR then read her reply/WS therein also again & again
& again. Keep noting the contradictions because if the case is false then
NO FALSE CASE ON EARTH is strong enough to NOT have contractions/
vacillating stand/ void for vagueness/ vendetta/ vengeance/ lego-technical
fallacy.
Few helpful tools are:- (A) RTI (B) CrPC 91 (C) Lego-technical fallacy (D)
Perjury before WS or Perjury alongwith WS (E) At least 30 or more
Preliminary Objections (V.V.Imp) (F) No Domestic Relationship Application
in case she prepares Voter I.Card of that address (G) Name Fraud
Application in case she files case in her maiden name (Lego Technical
Fallacy)
 Let me post here itself. LEGO-TECHNICAL FALLACY I learnt this concept of
technicality around 10 years back when I went for interview for permanent
post in Deptt of Commerce in Zakir Hussain College (Evening), University of
Delhi where a friend of mine but from ST community was selected for
permanent post but his candidature was challenged because he had UGC
(NET) in Commerce but his UG / PG was in Econimics. As a result despite
completion of all the formalities his appointment was cancelled on
technical grounds. This posed not just technical problem for his
appointment but also made his appointment if done legally invalid (invalid
means fallacy).
REMEMBER:- If you find that a complaint can NOT stand due to lego-
technical fallacy then within WS you need to challenge it as a preliminary
objection.
But before WS you need to write letter to seven authorities viz.,
(A) REG/VIG/HC
(B) CJ/HC
(C) CJI/SC
(D) DJ/FC (In Delhi the FC is at Dwarka)
(E) DJ/ District Court concerned
(F) Sessions Judge concerned (related to place where FIR is regd for 498a
but this case is DV)
(G) MM concerned (i.e., the same MM with whom your beloved wifey
placed her DV petition with)
AFTER EXACT 7 DAYS (
1) File RTI to
(A) above and ask ATR on (A) i.e., ATR on that letter which you wrote 7
days back with the heading LETTER REQUESTING ACTION (ON BEHALF OF
RESPONDENT) as above.
 (2) thru Second point of RTI ask the same questions which u put in that
letter in (A) above (3)
Do the same to (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) above
CAUTION:- Do NOT even by mistake file affadavit along with the above 7
letters.
COVER UP
(i) In Preliminary Objection this point must be covered.
(ii) In preliminary Objection to her maintenance application u/s 23 also
this point must be covered IMPORTANT POINTS
(a) Do NOT get worried if any of all of the above 7 authorities does NOT
give u favorable reply because YOUR POINT HAS BEEN RECORDED with all
these authorities forcefully (vehemently) thru these 7 letters & 7 RTI''s
(b) If your wifey challenges this point in any of the judgments that you are
filing baseless letters then also do NOT get dishearten. Just mention to her
reply that,
"THIS COMPLAINT IS NOT TECHNICALLY VALID AS PER LAW & is void-ab-
initio due LEGO-TECHNICAL FALLACY"
Push this point & let the MM pass the order which she will NOT. There are
chances that judiciary might try to pass a mesage to MM to return her DV
to her but by NOT letting u or world know that her plaint is being returned
due to lego-technical fallacy.
(c) Even if after that you are harassed thru that DV for 5-7 years next then
also need NOT worry if you are a fighter & u want a judgment for the
nation because NOW whatever will be done to u will be wrong. Im in every
reply do mention the point that this DV plaint suffers from Lego-Technical
Fallacy.
ATUR CHATUR SUCCESS STORY After more than one year of vehemently
pursuing a CrPC 91 against the police I have succeeded. This is NOT a
success for me. This is the success for the nation. This is the success for
men victims of false cases. This is also the success for those victimized by
police atrocracies/ atrocities.
WHY THIS IS A SUCCESS?
This is a success because
FIRST TIME IN HISTORY (at least as per my knowledge)
CRPC 91 OF COMPLAINANT HAS BEEN ALLOWED.
Last year I was pressurized that CrPC91 is NOT a right of complainant to
which I vehemently argued. As a result the police was told to file their
reply. They NOT just filed reply but also did some mischief in the records &
tried to make my complaint fall technically by NOT giving me any notice/
time for reply but since I am fighting PIP hence I understood their motive &
filed a reply to MM next day which put even the MM in loop. After that I
kept pressing CrPC 91 but with BLIND EAR being turned to it.
On third last date, I argued that police is sitting behind INVESTIGATIVE VEIL
& NOT replying to CrPC 91 & also NOT allowing me to file RTI's in the name
of investigation pending.
On second last date I pressed that CrPC 91 needs to be pressed. The MM
told me that it is his discretionary right.
I said, Sir, It is a shame for Indian Judiciary that A Terrorist like Abu Salem
is being provided some information & when I who is ex-professor DU
whose students have become lawyers & judges is being denied the same
info. Then MM told me to wait., went inside his cabin came back & told me
that he will decide CrPC 91 apne aap.
On last date, I told MM that please decide CrPC 91.
He said it is my discretion.
I told him, Sir, please mention it in the order sheet if it is rejected or
allowed or even if it is your discretionary power. Then he stumbled.
I told him,
respected SIR
you do NOT have rights or powers to hold CrPC 91 BEYOND 2-3 dates. It is
against the law.
He then tried to play the trick by asking me for some evidences against the
police.
I told I will give that in Evidence Stage.
He then forcefully tried to dictate some order to his typist.
I intervened,.
Sir, this is illegal order.
Please allow CrPC 91 or at least mention it,.
He then got the hint & told me to write on a piece of paper the documents
which I want thru CrPC 91.
I TOLD , Sir pls forward the entire CrPC 91. He still forced me to write. I
wrote the whole but requested him to attach the copy of original CrPC 91
with it to make it lego-technically valid.
He agreed & moved my CrPC 91 application.
ONE MORE THING I TOLD HIM that the FIR against me suffers from lego-
technical fallacy & it is vengeance/ vendetta because after I requested for
FIR against DCP under RTI act then just after 11 days FIR was registered
against me. They did FIR against me in urgency because if they waited
another 7 days then reply to my other RTI's would have been difficult for
them & by registering FIR against me they replied INVESTIGATION
PENDING SO CAN'T BE PROVIODED INFO FRIENDS PLEASE PRAY FOR ME
After the success I will post my real name & real case number as that will
help men victims. Whatever the result I will post after 6-8 months for sure
because at least it will help other MM's to allow COMPLAINANT'S CrPC 91
AGAINST POLICE which is rare. Atul, our best wishes to you. Looking
forward to more such posts from you. Certainly you are capable of
handling your case on your own. Humble request -- Legal experts should
appreciate (or ignore) rather than going on an ego
PRELIMINARY OBJECTION
The Hon’ble court cannot create its own procedure for grant of relief if
notice to respondent/husband is already issued & that respondents
evidences are duly taken up by this Hon’ble Court & weighed & considered
before passing any order/s under the Act.
Reference be had from:
Case Number:
CRL.RP 815/2009 Judge(s):
JAWAD RAHIM
Petitioners: KRISHNAMURTHY NOOKULA
Respondents: SAVITHA Y
Date of Judgment:
9-Dec-2009
also available at link:-
http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgments/bitstream/123456789/500665/2
/CRLRP815-09-09-12-2009.pdf
In Karnataka, this judgment has to be followed by all lower courts & this
judgment reflects totally the LAW POINTS which can’t be ignored by any
trial court of the country in cases which come under the purview of the
said Act. This judgment is requested to be used as a precedent as it is of
another High Court and some major extracts of the judgment read as
follows:- “Section 28
(1) clearly says that all proceedings under DV Act will be as per Code of
Criminal Procedure (CrPC). It also allows the court to lay down its own
procedure but only for sub-section 23
(2) which relates to grant of ex-parte order. So court cannot create its own
procedure for grant of relief if notice to respondent/husband is already
issued.” “The learned Magistrate issued prior notice to the petitioner
herein and therefore the order comes within the ambit of sub-section
 (1) of Section 23 and it is not an ex-parte order referred to in sub-section
(2) of Section 23. Once sub-section
(2) is inapplicable then sub-section
(1) of section 28 applies and necessary procedure prescribed by the Cr.P.C.
is to be followed. The legal consequences are that the procedure
prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure for trial of cases depending
upon the nature of offence and punishment prescribed becomes applicable
and that procedure has to be followed." "Reference to section 28 is
therefore necessary which provides for procedure. Section 28 reads thus:
"28.
Procedure –
(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, all proceedings under sections
12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 and offences under section 31 shall be
governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974).
(2) Nothing in sub-section
(1) shall prevent the court from laying down its own procedure for
disposal of an application under section 12 or under sub-section
(2) of section 23." "The next question is, which of the procedures
prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure for conduct of trial has to be
applied to an enquiry under the Act. The Code prescribes different
procedures for trial of summons cases and warrant cases. It depends on
the nature of offence committed and the punishment prescribed by the
Indian Penal Code or other law for the time being in force. In other words
it is severity of the punishment which determines the procedure, whether
it should be a summary trial to be conducted as a summons case or a trial
applying the procedure for warrant cases depends upon the punishment
prescribed. The provisions of Sections 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the Act
make contravention of the orders passed under the Act punishable as an
offence under Section 31 of the Act. To try a person for contravention of
any of the orders passed (interim or final) under the provisions referred to
above, Section 31 of the Act would apply. It postulates, a breach of
protection order, or of an interim protection order, by the respondent shall
be an offence under the Act and shall be punishable with imprisonment of
either descripttttion for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine
which may extend to twenty thousand rupees, or with both. Thus, the
punishment prescribed is imprisonment upto one year or fine upto
Rs.20,000/-. Undoubtedly, the procedure prescribed for the summary trial,
that is, summons case, has to be followed. Consequently, it was to be held
that the procedure to conduct an enquiry for action under Sections 18, 19,
20, 21, 22 and 23 of the Act applicable is by the procedure prescribed by
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (summons case) as the punishment
prescribed under Section 31 is only up to one year. This is as envisaged
under Section 28 of the Act.”
NOTE:- The above Preliminary Objection means that the MM can NOT
pass ex-parte orders without allowing husband to give his evidences in
case he has chosen to send summons to the husband. By way of the above
preliminary objection you are teloing the bare LAW POINT to the MM that
he is NOT authorized/ empowered to go beyond the law & the law says
that he has to follow CrPC if he himself has chosen to send summons/
notices to respondents & wait for their say. Now, if the husband presents
in DV then this Preliminary Objection must be there in WS.

NOTE:- This preliminary objection will NOT work for those against whom
ex-parte orders have been passed before issuing of summons to him.

TECHNICALITY:- Since the MM has chosen to send you summons instead of

passing any ex-parte it in itself means that he himself might have found
your wife's petition to be NOT SO STRONG. Further, if the MM gives the
first date of more than 90 days then that also means he feels the case NOT
STRONG ENOUGH because if the case would have been strong then he
would have passed ex-parte orders on seeing the condition of the woman
& would also have moved the case into fast track mode. Remember that,
the DV Case is meant to be Fast Track Case and all woman courts are
meant to be fast track technically.

MULTIFARIOUS LITIGATIONS CAN'T STAND TOGETHER TECHNICALLY

If Wife files 498a on Husband, In-Laws & separate living relatives then
technically she can file 498a because IPC sections are involved. However, if
she wants relief under DV then she should NOT file 498a & the reason is
technicality. But if she wants to harass u through multifarious litigations
then she herself gets entangled in technicality.
HOW?
If she files CAW then that means she wants to live with u but feels
insecurity wrt her life/ limbs so she choses the route of CAW which is
meant for VOLUNTARY & RECONCILIATORY. But instead CAW is chosen as
an intimidatory/ mediatory/ divorce/ extortion/ relate type which falsify
the basic purpose of setting up of CAW.
Now after CAW but before FIR if she files Divorce then technically the FIR
is NOT made out because Civil Court is bigger than Criminal Court & if a
lady has sought Divorce under Civil then this proves that she herself wants
to get out of the relationship i.e., something is wrong with her. Now, if FIR
is registered but before FIR (and after CAW) she files DV then that means
she wants to harass u because names of even the distant living relatives
has been put in the DV plaint hence technically DV is NOT applicable on
those who did NOT share domestic relationship. But if she does NOT write
the names of separate living relatives in DV then this proves contradictory
statements by her in CAW/FIR and DV.
NOTE:-
Technically she should NOT write the names of separate living relatives in
DV if she wants ex-parte relief u/s 23
(2) of DV i.e., immediate relief under DV However, if she writes the names
of separate living relatives in DV & even then the MM gives her favors/
gifts u/s 23(2) then that means the MM has NOT implemented application
of his intelligent mind as the plaint does NOT stand technically in DV.
Technically, in such cases the MM under the law is under legal obligation
to either throw her DV plaint (Nip-It-In-The-Bud) or move as per CrPC
procedures & issue summons/ notices to accused/ respondent. And once
CrPC starts then husband gets a right to present his evidences i.e.,
draconian 23(2) is NOT applicable now. Also read above Preliminary
Objection (PO) which is normally NOT required as the MM is under legal
obligation to act under the law but if you write that PO then that means
the MM has to write on order sheet why he chose to aply 23(2) without
waiting for evidence/s of husband when notice has already been issued to
husband by MM. Extract from above PO It also allows the court to lay
down its own procedure but only for sub-section 23(2) which relates to
grant of ex-parte order. So court cannot create its own procedure for grant
of relief if notice to respondent/husband is already issued. Remember, NO
FALSE CASE ON ENTIRE GLOBE IS STRONG ENOUGH to put a victim of false
cases in jeopardy. You just need to understand the law & technicality.
Goto my top-most post on page 1 of this thread to know why & how.
Friends, It's been over 10 years since DV came into force & many husbands
are still suffering. It's time for all men victims of false cases to wake up &
understand the technical aspects and do write your WS/ Drafting/
Applications yourself keeping the technicality in mind because DV can be
very easily countered with technicality alone so keep reading my next
posts & after every post read the top-most post by me & link it up with any
of my posts to understand the technical aspects indepth.
Best Wishes & Happy Fighting false cases & SOCIAL STIGMA on u & family
Pejury in crpc 125
Wife filed an affidavit contain 3 pages in family court in that she stated
some interogates from husband. when cross examining she admitted that
1. 4 signatures mentioned in the affidavit are not mine
2. The address mentioned in the affidavit are not mine ( She used the same
address in main case itself)
Can I file pejury pls advice
is your wife a witness?
what is the case actually?
perjury can be filed only against witnesses.
No one has a right to blow hot and cold in the Temple of Justice, especially
one under Oath.
This is the case of maintainance case filed by my wife. After that she filed
an affidavit asking details about husband's income etc. Affidavit contains 3
pages and in each page under her name she signed in 4 places. But when I
doubt with that 4 signatures in affidavit my advocate asked about this to
my wife during cross. She denied that this 4 signatures in this affidavit is
not hers and the address mentioned in the affidavit are not mine
This is the situvation
well then i think this is a case of perjury because based on her affidavit
you will be ordered to provide maintainance. this affidavit is very
important.
If it is not her signature at all then the affidavit itself is unreliable, she has
not approached the court with clean hands, you may initiate process for
filing perjury against her.
 Mp is not disposed before main case is disposed
Hi, In family court wife filed Interim application for interim maintenance .
Along with the counter husband filed application (section 340 read with
section 195 of CrPC) in the Interim Maintenancne Petition of wife stating
perjury is committed by wife. In this matter Wife petition for Interim
Maintenance is main petition and the husband petition is child petition.
Family Court disposed the wife's petition that is main petition ....without
disposing the husband's petition. Is it valid in law .... if so when the
husband's petition/application can be disposed by court?
1. In Family Court only S. 26 HMA as well as S. 125 CrPC are treated as
“stand alone” or as main petition in reference to context and not S. 24
HMA if that is what has been disposed off.
2. In Family Court it is not necessary to file Main Application under S. 125
CrPC, wife has been given liberty even to file just an Affidavit for claiming
interim maintenance under S. 125 CrPC. Now in either of the above
scenarios which you have not clarified (Section of law used by your wife) it
is within power (Rules) of Family Court to dispose off a maintenance
application of wife and keep said M/P (S. 340 r/w S. 195) in abeyance and
language of S. 340 is very clear and in majority of Family Law related
questions before Family Court(s) the Court understands well that without
15% perjury mentioned as material matter (facts) either parties
Application / Petition would not have seen light of Court proceedings.
Above last sentence you can interpret in any way and if you want to
strongly rebut to me then please do so bze. advance reply I will give you is
from Law of Torts where specifically Law / Statutes says an Member of
Parliament / MLA and Government Official drawing salary from exchequer
is allowed to commit perjury and under Law of Torts damages cannot be
claimed from either of them !!! Hence in such blunt realities of the land
where does your and mine Family Laws proceedings stands in reference to
query my dear queriest J Thus, no illegality have been committed by
Family Court in reference to your query is my observation, infact now you
can now press for Evidence and taking S. 340 (your M/P).
In the present case wife filed main petition U/s 125 of CrPC and alleged
100% contradictory story to the 498A case story. The contradiction is such
that both the version of the wife stories are not possible to happen in real
scenario. Also wife supressed her working and earning experiences and
other sources of income. Hence I filed perjury listing all the above. If
petition is disposed without disposing its Miscelleneous petitions/Interim
petition, and later if court passes order in Miscelleneous petitions/Interim
petitionwull it be maintainable? its almost like after disposing main case,
its interim applications are taken up for decision. Please correct me if I am
wrong side. Thank you.
That is the problem litigants face without understand proceedings of
Courts.
1. Is Family Court established under Family Court Act hearing her S. 498a
IPC so why mix up Criminal matter heard by a Magistrate Court with
Principal Judge Court hearing a S. 125 CrPC matter which is for vagrancy
and starvation r/w refusal and neglect further r/w ability based?
2. Again you have not clarified if she filed Affidavit for interim
maintenance under S. 125 The Code or filed Application u/s 125 CrPC
alleging what she has to allege therein and annexed a separate Application
for interim maintenance or even did she only file an Affidavit seeking
interim maintenance under The Code? Be it as it may be, if you finding
difficult to explain moot point, if you filed proofs of her working and
income etc. then proper method was to press (stand down) before Family
Court to dispose either way your S. 340 first before interim maintenance
under The Code is disposed failing which your side should have appealed
before HC seeking ‘stay directions’ along with additional direction to
Family Court “in the interest of justice” taking S. 340 in “time bound”
fashion or matter put on Evidence (call for) whatever you annexed as
proofs in time bound fashion. OR other method was to let go interim
maint. and deposit awarded amount in Court with application to dispose
your S. 340 now and if goes against you then release the same (amount
means) and if not then law will now take its own course against wife. Even
this last resort was not taken up on Board looks like to me. In Delhi in a
husbands case we deposited the interim award in Family Court same day
and requested to take either way ours S. 340, now from last almost 2 years
can you imagine family court is not taking S. 340 but then we are
comfortable with it and whenever wife sheds tears to release award
money we say ‘dispose either way S. 340 and release the cheque (which is
now even out dated J) and Courts asks husband to compromise or sends
him for reconciliation which we always ensure it fails. . Since none from
above I see being act of your part on Family Court Ordered part it is natural
that your sides proofs were taken in material file and meanwhile the spirit
of S. 125 CrPC i.e. vagrancy and starvation which are interim speedy relief’s
were granted to her with directions to her to lead her Evidences for main
case. Here S. 125 CrPC main application is her main case. Now what should
happen is press for call for witnesses of her job / her real estates / her FD’s
/ her bank statements etc. etc. and cross examine witnesses and then seek
taking up S. 340 to its final conclusion whereas if you donto do this now
she is bound to press for Execution and once she does that your S. 340 will
go for a toss (means kept in file forever). Regarding if no stay you manage
from HC then you need to meet interim award and if you succeed later on
in S. 340 then her S. 125 CrPC completely (interim that is currently
awarded and final) will both get dismissed but you will not get a refund
from her whatsoever to whatever you paid till that time yet the charm of
sending her to even 1 night in prison via one such success story in S. 340
compensates many a husbands is my view.
Dear Te, Wife filed affidavit in Interim Maintenance appalication. Interim
Maintenance appalication is filed on the next day the CrPC-125 petition
filed in Family Court. I agree with you that the 498A and CrPC-125 are
different whereas inmy case both willbe same on the gorund that wife is
staying away from husband on the ground of alleged harassment and
cruelty only..... Whereas the allegd cruelty allegations in 498A and CrPC-
125 are contradicting such that any one is flase without any doubt, ground
to say that is alibi (physical presene to cause harassment/cruelty) as per
wife's statements. On this ground only I filed 340 application read with 195
of CrPC. Shall I give undertaking to the Family Court that I am ready to pay
arrears without fail after passing the orders in 340 application, will it
work? If I pay arrears and after that if court do not take up the 340
application, what should I do?
Perjury for lying to obtain interim maintenance
In a DV case, the wife has obtained an interim maintenance order claiming
she has no source of income. She has gone on record through affidavit that
she has no source of income. The Magistrate has taken that into
consideration and ordered execution proceedings against me. However, in
two other applications she filed, one each in Sessions Court and High
Court, she has claimed her working status as Service. Could her affidavit in
Sessions Court and High Court be used against her to stop interim
maintenance and initiate perjury. The Magistrate court is not initiating trial
on the pretext of collection of arrears on interim maintenance. Please
advise if the stage is ripe for initiating perjury against the wife for having
concealed her true working status (that she herself contradicts through her
own affidavit in other courts)?
 Pay the arrears due of the maintenance allowed to her and file application
under section 340 Cr.P.C for the Judicial Magistrate to initiate proceedings
for perjury against your wife. The chance that mere mention by the wife in
her affidavits working status as "Service" which were filled in Session
Court and High Court and affidavit filled in JMIC court as has no source of
income can always be explained by her by stating that her present source
of income is nill as she is not working now, whereas at the time the
affidavits those were filled in two other courts she was in service. Rest it is
the court to decide the application u/s 340 Cr.P.C.
From your note, I understand there is no issue regarding the stage for
filing perjury at this time. As for the possibility of her changing her stance
about working earlier and then quitting the job, I am aware that could be a
ploy but I have other documents to prove otherwise. For sake of brevity, I
did not bring forth all that content here. Once again, thank you so much
for the response. Rcr filed after 125crpc and 498a
Hi, my wife has filed false 498 & 125 crpc in 2012, since she did not appear
in family court maintenance case was dismissed, 498 is still pending for
evidence form past 8 months. Now she has filed rcr, please suggest what
are the options available.
On the one had she files a 498a stating that you tortured her for dowry etc
and on the other hand she files a RCR asking you to cohabit with her? You
according to her on the one hand is the VILLAIN, the rapist, almost equal to
hitler and she on the other hand is the SATI SAAVITRI, no matter how hard
you are on her, she still loves you, covers her head with the pallu, and
always stand with her head down telling SWAMI whats are your orders?
Options available are:
1. File for divorce.
2. After the 498a case is over, file perjury, depending on how much she
has lied under oath.
 3. Reply to 125 crpc, show to court her income and you need not pay her
maintenance.
The dismissal of maintenance case is an evidence that she is not very
serious about the matrimonial relationship with you. If you are ready to
take her back into your fold, you may ask her to withdraw her criminal
case and also the RCR and once agreed unconditionally, take her back or
else, challenge all her moves against you appropriately. Thanks for the
reply, I have decided not to take her back and fight the case. Could you
please refer me to objections filed for an RCR, this reference will be for my
guidance.
Collect all evidences & file a divorce petition on the ground of cruelty.
However, if re-evaluate your chances of taking her back for consummation
of marriage then you can follow the advise of advocate T. Kalaiselvan.
Alternatively you should be fighting to prolong the case & follow the steps
as advised by Helping Hand.
The grounds for opposing RCR are the background facts of the case as well
as your past experience and matrimonial history. You are a better judge,
you give all the details without suppressing the facts that may be material
to your advocate who will be able to proceed and challenge her allegations
in RCR. Since you have categorically stated that you are not interested in
taking her back, you may file a divorce case on the grounds of cruelty and
desertion in the same court and concentrate on it accordingly. Let her 498a
case move in a snail's pace, it is her botheration because it was she who
have legal help seeking relief that way through the said false case.
Perjury case u/s 340 as counter case.
01 November 2015
Dear sir,
I am harshit from lucknow,UP.first,
I want to brief about my case.
Married in 2001.A female Birth child in 2003.This greedy women Mostly
lived in own parent house.Case 125 crpc filed by my wife in 2006,at
bnkdist.up.In march 2007,she came after compromise by court. During this
period she shows pregnancy and gave a birth of male child.after that she
filed a separate 125 crpc case for this male child maintenance.
After 6 month she again went her home,and filed criminal case on me and
my family members, 498 a,523,and dowery act etc. I got arrest stay from
HC,lko.. Then I filed divorce sec-13a, 2008 at lko. and I got ex-party from
family court lucknow, at Lucknow,up, in 2009.Now I got married and
wedlock of one male child.

After that, she filed a restoration case, saying i dont have any knowledge
about this case. I filed counter case 340 crpc on this case,This case run upto
2014, and this case also kharij or dismiss, due to filing of counter case u/s
340 sec. and also abcence of her.

The maintinance case of bnk is running stil.Here, I also filed counter case
u/s 340 on sec-125 case along with so many contradictory evidence as she
given as PW1,PW2 etc.which clearly show that these all cases are
fake/furjee.

Due to 340 case, no judge want to take any action against this lady.and
henc passed 3 years giving date and only date. I want to decide with
permanent alimony. but this lady asking 25 laks. and judje is also favoring
to her. which is just not possile for me.I am giving only 4 laks. but she is
not ready and harassing. beacuse i have to go to other dist. for attending
case.
since divorce had been decided by family court lucknow, which was filed
by me at lucknow. but 125 crpc is still pending at other district as in
barabanki dist. filed by my ex-wife. On this case I have filed a Perjury case
u/s 340 as counter case. but from past 5 years judge has been not taken
any action even she has also not filed any reply against this 340 case.
Judges are favoring/taking side to this lady and just passing date.
My question is that :
1). Can I file a proposal for permanent alimony before Hon'ble family court
barabanki subjecting and praying that this case should be decided under
(one time settlement )permanent alimony
Under change circumstances of the case.
2. If I file this proposal, then, under which section I can file.
Dear Learned LCI members, 08/11/2016
The following is a wonderful judgment in which
FAMILY COURT RAJKOT( Criminal Misc Application-sessions 346/2013
Dated 06/09/2016 )
held that this woman be prosecuted for submitting false evidences under
sections 340 and 195 of Crpc which is also upheld by the HIGH COURT OF
GUJARAT in the case of
SEJAL CHAVOTIYA VS TEJAS CHAVOTIYA and ors. This news is published in
the TIMES OF INDIA AHMEDABAD edition on date 28/10/2016.
Thus the judgment of GUJARAT HIGH COURT is between 07/09/2016 to
25/10/2016 but even my best efforts I could not found it except the case
no of FAMILY COURT with name of the parties. If anybody locate it and
publish it in the FORUM OF LCI, it will give an immense pleasure to all the
husbands who are fighting against the false and frivolous litigations in the
family court. Kindly provide the below judgment to members for their
knowledge and using the citation for their case if the facts are the same as
below:-
HERE IS THE NEWS HC upholds family court's order to prosecute woman
TNN | Oct 28, 2016, 06:05
IST AHMEDABAD: Gujarat high court upheld a Rajkot family court's
decision ordering the prosecution of a woman who concealed her income
and property while demanding maintenance from her husband. According
to advocate Pratik Jasani, who appeared in the case, Sejal Chovatiya and
her husband Tejas Chovatiya had some domestic discord and are living
separately. The woman moved the family court in Rajkot in 2013 and filed
a suit for maintenance demanding Rs 20,000 every month. She claimed
before the court that she had no source of income. However, during
proceedings, her husband placed on record her income tax returns for the
last five years and succeeded in establishing that she runs a business with
a considerable income. The court was also provided evidence about her
fixed deposits in banks. The woman, however, denied having any income
in her cross-examination. The court felt that the woman tried to mislead
the court by adducing false evidence. It rejected her alimony plea and
ordered the registry to file a complaint against her under sections 340 and
195 of the Criminal Procedure Code for prosecution for contempt of lawful
authority of public servants for offences against public justice and for
offences relating to documents given in evidence.
Kind regards
Petition A/102050/2010 EXH.56 ----------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
Bandra FC ordered prosecution for perjury on wife who lies under affidavit
oath 
Respondent wife lies under affidavit oath to hide her source of income in
the greed of maintenance money.
 Family Court No.3, Bandra Mumbai, judge Subhash R. Kafre ordered
perjury on respondent wife under Section 177, 181, 182 and 191, read with
Section 193 of Indian penal Code.  Off lately, the wife was punished 3
years sentenced to jail. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
IN THE FAMILY COURT MUMBAI AT BANDRA PETITION NO.A-2050 OF 2010
Mr. Niraj Shah ... Petitioner Vs. Mrs. Nikita Shah ...
Respondent CORAM: HIS HONOUR JUDGE SHRI. S. R. KAFRE
DATED: 24th DECEMBER, 2013.
ORDER BELOW EXH.56
1. This is an application filed by the petitioner for taking action for perjury
against respondent-wife.
2. According to the petitioner he has filed this petition for decree of
divorce. The respondent had filed interim application for maintenance
pendentelite on 28-4-2011 stating in para No.10 of said application, “I have
no source of income and have become burden on my parents, it is
embarrassing and ridiculous situation as I am being compelled to depend
upon parents for my daily needs, after marriage”. The respondent has also
mentioned, “I do not have any other source of income.”
3. According to the petitioner, the respondent used to work as a Teacher in
a school prior to her marriage is admitted position. The petitioner had filed
an application for review of order by producing documentary proof that
the respondent is working as a school Teacher and her photograph appears
in the magazine of the Thakur Public School, Kandivali (E) and having
permanent job and also having bank account in Saraswat Bank, Kandivali
(E) Branch, vide salary account No.4963957. The respondent had refused to
produce any document in spite of the petitioner has filed on record the
book published by the school, where the respondent is working as a
Teacher. The respondent has filed her affidavit as per the direction of this
Court, which speaks about her employment. It is admitted that she was
working full-time and getting Rs.7500/- per month but in spite of calling
upon her to produce her bank statement and income proof, she refrained
from doing so. 4. According to the petitioner, after the witness summons
and a document brought on record, it is revealed by the order of this Court
dated 7-5-2013 that the respondent is a liar and she obtained the interim
maintenance order by misguiding this Court by purposefully stating lie on
oath and Petition A/102050/2010 EXH.56 concealing the material fact by
not producing documents which are in her possession and made the
petitioner to suffer. Therefore, the petitioner has requested for taking
legal action against the respondent under the provisions of Section 195
and Section 340 of Criminal Procedure Code.
5. After filing of this application, my learned predecessor has passed order
dated 3-7-2013 of issuance of notice under Section 340 of Criminal
Procedure Code. The copy of this application was given to the respondent
on the same day i.e. on 3-7-2013. On 5-8-2013 the learned Advocate for
the respondent had made a remark on the overleaf of the application that
she will argue.
6. I have heard learned Advocate Smt. Usha Tanna for the petitioner and
learned Advocate Smt. Jivan Vijay for the respondent wife. The learned
Advocate for the petitioner has vehemently argued that, though the
respondent has source of income, she has made false averments in her
application that she did not have any source of income. She has sworn
affidavit with false contents. The learned Advocate has further submitted
that while deciding the review application of the husband, this Court has
made observations in respect of the false averments made by the
respondent and therefore, it is necessary to initiate action of perjury
against the respondent-wife.
7. Smt. Jivan Vijay, learned Advocate, appearing for the respondent-wife
has submitted that false accusations are made against the respondent. She
has filed her documents on record and in view of modified order, the
quantum of the maintenance was reduced and this Court, while deciding
the review application, has imposed exemplary cost of Rs.5000/- on the
respondent and therefore already action is taken against the respondent.
Now, there is no need to proceed against the respondent under the
provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Advocate for the
respondent has further submitted that there was no malice or intention to
mislead this Court and the bonafide mistake of the respondent be excused.
8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions canvassed
by the learned Advocates for both the party.
9. The provisions of Chapter XXVI of Code of Criminal Procedure deal with
offences affecting the administration of justice. Section 195 of said Code
speaks about prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public
servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to
documents given in evidence. The provisions of Section 340 of the Code
reads as under : “Procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195-
(1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any
Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an
inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-
section (1) of Section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in
relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a
document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court,
such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks
necessary,-
(a) record a finding to that effect;
(b) make a complaint thereof in writing; Petition A/102050/2010 EXH.56
(c ) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;
(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such
Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it
necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and
(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such
Magistrate.
(2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-Section
(1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court respect of
that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint,
be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within
the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 195.
(3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed,-
(a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer
of the Court as the Court may appoint;
(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court or by such officer
of the Court as the Court may authorize in writing in this behalf.
(4) In this section, “Court” has the same meaning as in Section 195.”
10. In the case in hand the petitioner-husband has filed main petition for
divorce under the provisions of Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act.
The respondent has submitted written statement at Exh.12. After the
appearance of the respondent, both the parties were referred to the
Marriage Counsellor for exploring the possibility of reconciliation and
amicable settlement. However, no reconciliation or amicable settlement
had taken place. Even after hearing of the argument of present application
at Exh.56, I had referred both the parties to Judge Mediator, to work out
the settlement between the parties. However, the parties could not come
to terms and accordingly Judge Mediator has submitted the report.
11. The respondent had filed interim application No.162 of Section 24 of
Hindu Marriage Act. Said application was contested by the petitioner. Said
application was decided on 2-3-2012 by my learned predecessor and
interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month was granted to
the respondent, from the date of said application i.e. 28-4-2011. The
respondent was also given litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.
12. On 11-5-2012 the petitioner had filed application for review and/or
cancellation of maintenance order dated 2-3-2012. The said application
was resisted by the respondent by filing her reply on Exh.32 and after
hearing both the parties, the said application was decided on 7-5-2013. In
view of that order, the quantum of maintenance granted to the
respondent was reduced from Rs.20,000/- per month to Rs.13,000/- per
month.
13. In the original interim maintenance application at Exh.13 in para No.10
the respondent has stated that she has no source of income and has
become burden on her parents, it is embarrassing and ridiculous situation
as she being compelled to depend upon parents for her daily needs, after
marriage. Further, in para No.13 of said application the respondent has
stated that she is a simple graduate and cannot earn her livelihood and it is
the duty of the petitioner to provide for the same. While replying these
averments, the petitioner had stated in para No.8 of his reply at Exh.17
that the respondent is well Petition A/102050/2010 EXH.56 educated and
accomplish and qualified graduate with expertise in teaching institution
and was employed in Nursery Institution and thus the respondent was
capable of maintaining
14. Now, it is necessary to see what observations are made by my learned
predecessor while deciding the review application at Exh.30, in respect of
the income of the respondent-wife. The observations made in para No.10
of said order runs as under:
"While disposing interim maintenance application, this Court in para No.4
has observed that there is no record before Court to believe that
respondent-wife is an earning member. This observation was based upon
statement of respondent and also from the circumstance that there was no
record before Court to prove the earning of the respondent. The
documents which are referred herein in this order clearly reveal that on
the date of passing of the order and on the date of moving an application
for interim maintenance, respondent was an earning member, so
respondent has misguided this Court to believe that she do not have any
income. She has suppressed vital information from the Court that she is
earning about Rs.6804/- by being working as a Pre-primary Teacher in a
school".
15. It is settled position of law that while determining quantum of
maintenance the regard shall be had to the status and position of the
parties, income of both the parties, reasonable wants of the claimant and
number of persons dependent upon the payer. The provisions of
maintenance are benevolent provisions. These provisions are made to
prevent vagrancy of destitute wife and the minor children. The person who
is liable to maintain his dependents, has to provide maintenance to his
dependents, so that they can keep their soul and body together and they
should not face any problem in their day-to-day life. The needy persons
are entitled to get the basic liable to maintain them as per the provisions
of law.
16. It is settled principle of law that he who seeks equity, must do equity.
The fraud and justice cannot dwell together. The justice seeker must step
in the Court with clean hands. The dishonest person cannot be entertained
by the Court of law. In matrimonial matters persons come with their family
problems before the Court and Court makes every possible attempt to find
out solution of their problems. In such circumstances, it is the first and
foremost responsibility of the party to tell the truth to the Court, so that
Court can go to the root of the matter to solve the real dispute. There
should not be game of hide and seek when justice is sought from the Court
of law. All the Dharmashastras teach us "the truth”. Foundation of every
case must be on true and honest disclosure of facts. No place can be given
to lies or falsehood during the course of administration of justice. The
person who comes to the Court i.e. house of justice, to seek justice, has to
show his bonafides and honesty by making true disclosure of the facts
within his knowledge.
17. Here it has been established that the respondent-wife has suppressed
vital information from the Court that she is earning about Rs.6804/- by
being working as a Pre-primary Teacher in a school. It was the prime duty
of the respondent-wife to come in the Court with clean hands by stating
that she is earning Rs.6804/- per month. If she wants to claim maintenance
from the petitioner, she has to make out a case that it is not possible for
her to lead life with at higher side. She has to show the disparity between
her income and income of the respondent and by making such type of true
disclosure of the facts, she should have claimed maintenance amount from
the petitioner. But this has not been happened in this case. The
respondent-wife has made false averments in her interim maintenance
application by stating that she has no source of income and she is burden
upon her parents. She has not taken pain to disclose her income, though it
may be meager. On the contrary, she has made false statements on oath.
Petition A/102050/2010 EXH.56
18. While submitting the application for interim maintenance, the
respondent-wife has taken oath and she has sworn affidavit on the
application itself. This goes to show that she has made false averments
knowingly in a Court proceeding. In such circumstances, prima facie, the
offences punishable under Section 177, 181, 182 and 191, read with
Section 193 of Indian penal Code are attracted. Because of the false
statements made by the respondent in her application for interim
maintenance, this Court is misled and misguided and therefore, the
petitioner has suffered and he was directed to pay maintenance at the rate
of Rs.20,000/- per month.
19. The petitioner was required to file application for review of said order
and accepting his contention, the quantum of maintenance was reduced
from Rs.20,000/- per month to Rs.13,000/- per month. While deciding the
said application, my learned predecessor has imposed exemplary cost of
Rs.5000/- on the respondent for making false statements. But it does not
mean that the respondent is absolved from the criminal liability.
Therefore, it is necessary to take action against the respondent as per the
provisions of Section 195 and 340 of Criminal Procedure Code. The Deputy
Registrar of this Court has to file complaint against the respondent in
competent Court for the offences discussed above.
20. In view of my foregoing discussion, I come to the conclusion that, the
application at Exh.56 deserves to be allowed. In the result, I proceed to
pass the following order.
ORDER
1. The application at Exh.56 is allowed.
2. The Deputy Registrar of Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai, is directed to file
complaint against the respondent-wife in competent Court, for the
offences punishable under Section 177, 181, 182 and 191, read with
Section 193 of Indian penal Code.
3. The Deputy Registrar is authorized to take true copies of entire
proceedings to file along with the complaint in the competent Court.
4. Inform this order to Deputy Registrar, Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
Sd/-24-12-2013 ( Subhash R. Kafre ) Judge,Family Court No.3, Mumbai.
Date : 24-12-2013 Court Orders Sr No Case Type/Case Number/Case Year
Order Date Order No. Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai 1 Petition
A/102050/2010 02-03-2012 Order No.1 2 Petition A/102050/2010 07-05-
2013 Order on EXh. 3 Petition A/102050/2010 24-12-2013 Order on EXh. 4
Petition A/102050/2010 30-10-2014
HC ordered prosecution for perjury on wife who lies under affidavit oath 
 Wife lied under affidavit and oath, hid fact of her second marriage.
 Husband won the case appearing PARTY IN PERSON inthe High court.
 Hon’ble HC says, wife to be prosecuted for perjury under IPC 195 and
CrPC 340 punishable under IPC 193.
------ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.03.2013
CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU
Criminal Revision Case No.1262 of 2012 P. Murugesan ..
Petitioner Vs.
B. Gokila ..
Respondents PRAYER:
Criminal Revision case filed under Section 397 & 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in M.C.No.22 of 2007 on the file
of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam, Coimbatore and set
aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.4334 of 2012 on 24.08.2012. For
Petitioner : Mr.R. Murugesan Party in person For Respondent : Ms. Kavitha
for M/s PVS Giridhar Associates ORDER The following are the allegations
contained in the Protest Petition filed by the petitioner: The Court below
has directed the Inspector of Police, Sirumugai Police Station, to
investigate the private complaint filed by the petitioner. But the police did
not file any report even though the petitioner sent two letters dated
19.6.2012 and 26.07.2012 which were received on 26.6.2012 and 28.7.2012
alongwith the above said private complaint copy and marriage registration
certificate of respondent. The respondent has re-married on 25.02.2010
but on 11.11.2011 during the cross examination she told that she has not
remarried. Hence, the Court may be pleased to direct the police to re-open
and re-investigate the matter or direct the CBCID to investigate the
complaint and file report.
 2. Judicial Magistrate, recorded sworn statement of the petitioner and
dismissed the petition stating that on going through the records and sworn
statement, the only offence made out is under Section 193 IPC., that
according to Section 195 Cr.P.C. this petitioner has no locus standi to file
this complaint under Section 193 I.P.C. and hence the petition is not
maintainable.
3. The petitioner/party-in-person would contend that in as much as the
Court below has found that the respondent has committed offence u/s 193
I.P.C., even though it is of the view that the petitioner has no locus standi
to lodge the complaint, there is no legal impediment for the Court below
to prefer complaint against the respondent when adequate materials were
available before the Court and without lodging complaint before the
concerned Court, dismissing the petition is not sustainable.
4. Contending contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
Ms. Kavitha would submit that as per the finding rendered by the Court
below, the petitioner has no locus standi to point out anything on the part
of the respondent so as to make her accused, that by means of which he
could not make any complaint and in this regard there is no legal infirmity
found in the order passed by the Court below.
5. The petitioner says that the respondent wife was divorced and she re-
married on 25.2.2010 in Arulmigu Subramaniaswamy Thirukkoil,
Pachaimalai-Modachur, Erode District for which he has produced copy of
the Marriage Certificate issued by the Executive Officer of the said Temple.
He also adds that she is having a male child aged 1= years. Suppressing the
fact, she is continuing the maintenance case. While she was examined in
cross on 11.11.2011 in MC Case No.22/07 before the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Mettupalayam, she has stated that she has not contacted
second marriage. But when she was examined in the same court on
31.08.2012, she admitted that after divorce she contacted second marriage
and her husband's name is Arjunan, that after the said marriage she is
having a male child aged 1 year 3 months. If it is so, while she deposed
earlier on 11.11.2011 her child should have been aged 5 months. It is
consciously admitted by her that the child was born out of the second
marriage. Hence, it is manifest that she has given a false statement on
11.11.2011 as to her marriage that she has not married for the second
time.
6. Significantly it is to note that she has made false statements while she
was examined before the same Court in M.C.No.22 of 2007, i.e., Judicial
Magistrate, Mettupalayam. Taking advantage of this situation, the
petitioner has come forward with this claim.
7. The petitioner relies upon an unreported order of mine in
M.P.SR.No.39639 of 2011 in Crl.O.P.No.18268 of 2011 dated 3.4.2012
wherein I have followed the decision of the Supreme Court reported in
2003 (1) Crimes 235(SC)=AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 541= (2003) SCC 76
[N.Natarajan v. B.K.Subba Rao] wherein Their Lordships have observed as
follows -
9....... In ordinary crimes not adverted to under Section 195 CrPC, if in
respect of any offence, law can be set into motion by any citizen of this
country, we fail to see how any citizen of this country cannot approach
even under Section 340 CrPC. For that matter, the wordings of Section 340
CrPC are significant. The Court will have to act in the interest of justice on a
complaint or otherwise. Assuming that the complaint may have to be
made at the instance of a party having an interest in the matter, still the
court can take action in the matter otherwise than on a complaint, that is,
when it has received information as to a crime having been committed
covered by the said provision. Therefore, it is wholly unnecessary to
examine this aspect of the matter. We proceed on the basis that the
respondent has locus standi to present the complaint before the
Designated Judge."
8. In the said case, I have followed the principles laid down by the
Honourable Supreme Court and observed that in view of the above ratio, it
is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner has got locus standi to file the application.
9. In the above stated case, I have also followed a decision of this Court in
1908 MLJ VOL XIX [Aiyakannu Pillai v. Emperor] wherein it is held that a
complaint can be presented at any time subject to the law of limitation, an
order under Section 476 (I) can be made at any time (the old provision for
Section 340 Cr.P.C. is Section 476). In the said case I reached a conclusion
that the petitioner in that case has locus standi to file the application.
10. The petitioner also placed reliance upon N. Natarajan's case (supra)
wherein Their Lordships have held as follows: "It is well settled that in
criminal law a complaint can be lodged by anyone who has become aware
of a crime having been committed and thereby set the law into motion. In
respect of offences adverted to in Section 195 CrPC there is a restriction
that the same cannot be entertained unless a complaint is made by a court
because the offence is stated to have been committed in relation to the
proceedings in that court. Section 340 CrPC is invoked to get over the bar
imposed under Section 195 CrPC. In ordinary crimes not adverted to under
Section 195 CrPC, if in respect of any offence, law can be set into motion by
any citizen of this country, we fail to see how any citizen of this country
cannot approach even under Section 340 CrPC. For that matter, the
wording of Section 340 CrPC is significant. The court will have to act in the
interest of justice on a complaint or otherwise. Assuming that the
complaint may have to be made at the instance of a party having an
interest in the matter, still the court can take action in the matter
otherwise than on a complaint, that is, when it has received information as
to a crime having been committed, covered by the said provision."
11. He also cited another latest Supreme Court judgment on this point
reported in 2012 (1) CTC 184 [Abdul Rehman & Others v. K.M.Anees-ul-
Haq] wherein Their Lordships have thoroughly analyzed all the relevant
judgments and directed to transfer the criminal case filed by the husband
to the Court of competent jurisdiction.
12. The learned counsel for the respondent cited a decision of Supreme
Court reported in AIR 1978 SC 1753 [Dr. S.P.Kohli v. The High Court Punjab
and Haryana] wherein Their Lordships have held as under: "Further, it is
well settled that prosecution for perjury should be sanctioned by Courts
only in those cases where it appears to be deliberate and conscious and
the conviction is reasonably probable or likely. It is also well recognized
that there must be a prima facie of deliberate falsehood on a matter of
substance and the Court should be satisfied that there is reasonable
foundation for the charge."
13. In AIR 1971 SC 1367 [Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam and another] it is
held thus: "7. 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. No doubt
giving of false evidence and filing false affidavits is an evil which must be
effectively curbed with a strong hand but to start prosecution for perjury
too readily and too frequently without due care and caution and on
inconclusive and doubtful material defeats its very purpose. 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. There
must be prima facie case of deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance
and the court should be satisfied that there is reasonable foundation for
the charge."
14. The learned counsel for the respondent cited a portion of the decision
in N.Natarajan's case (supra) which is as follows: "Private complaint
indulging in vexatious litigation based on hald-baked knowledge of law
wasting time of court should be restrained in the interest of administration
of justice from filing similar applications. If still he persists, such
application/complaint should be dismissed at limine and appropriate
proceedings be initiated against him."
15. In MANU/PH/0330/1985 [Jaswinder Singh v. Smt. Paramjit Kaur] it is
held thus: "4. As is plain from the aforesaid stances adopted by the parties,
they are out for personal vendetta. It is a settled principle of law that
courts never become tools at the hands of the parties to satisfy private
vendetta or to take up cudgels on behalf of one party and punish the
other. The primary object to take proceedings under Section 340 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, in instituting a complaint for giving false
evidence, is to curb the evil of perjury and to keep the flow of proceedings
in courts unsullied and pure. It is only in a rare case, when the Court comes
to the conclusion that if the complaint is filed conviction is more or less a
certainty, that it chooses to become a complainant. In such like
contentious issues, when the wife can again indulge in proving that the
husband was wrong and she was right, it is not expedient for this Court to
enter into the fact and become a complainant at the behest of the
husband-petitioner. Thus, I am of the considered view that it is not
expedient to pursue the matter any further at the instance of the parties."
16. Armed with the above said decisions, the learned counsel for the
respondent would submit that it is not for the petitioner to set the law in
motion as far as the untenable claim is concerned and as per the decision
of the Punjab and Haryana High Court [Jaswinder Singh's case] 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. She also
states that as far as the contention of the petitioner is concerned, it is only
to harass the respondent.
17. From the evidence of the respondent is has come to light that before
the same Court she has taken different stands as to her marriage and the
finding of the Court below that only offence made out against the first
respondent is under section 193 I.P.C.is appropriate. Hence, as per the
dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in N.Natarajan's case
it is incumbent upon the Magistrate to proceed with Section 340 Cr.P.C.as
per the procedure laid down in the provision. In such a view of the matter,
this Court is of the view that the learned Judicial Magistrate has to be
directed to act in accordance with law as per Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C.
18. In fine, the revision is allowed directing the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Mettupalayam to prefer complaint against the respondent and
to act in accordance with Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C. The learned Judicial
Magistrate is also directed to dispose of the Maintenance Case within one
month from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. ggs
crpc in 125 crpc
(Querist)

Dear experts
My ex wife has filed 125 crpc for minor child and her. But the name of child
and residential address is given in petition I.e. wrong.through a
application/ rti act I have found that these two thinks are not correct in her
petition.
1.childe name
2. Her residential address.
These are prima facie evidence which shows that she has committed
perjury.
My QST. Is that can I file the 340 crpc case against her as counter case?
Pls advice and suggest....
Thanks to all....
Justice Malimath proposing changes in S. 125 CrPC -Karnataka
On 28th Sep, 2010, chairman of Karnataka Law Commission has
recommended to State Govt. to amend S. 125 CrPC among other changes.
The significant recommendations are:
1. Live in woman to get same status as wife under CrPC 125
2. Husband to declare assets under CrPC 125
I noticed in LCI Forum there are genuine members from Karnataka State
and they have in recent past asked very genuine Law questions, hence, if
they feel that below protest / recommendation Letter may help making
gender neutral maintenance Laws in their State to begin with then they
are requested to simply copy and paste the Letter and post them to three
respected Public Figures marked there. --------------------------------------- From:
write your name and fill in other details
Name:
Address:
Email:
Mobile:
Date: 29-09-2010
To, Justice Shri V Malimath, Chairman, Law Commission of Karnataka,
Dear Sir,
Sub: Recommendations by law commission on proposed law amendments
I would like to draw your attention in the matter of recently submitted 12
recommendations by Honourable Chairman of Karnataka Law Commission
Mr Malimath to the Karnataka State Government. Going by the newspaper
reports on the recommendations, we would like to give my feedback on
these important issues of changes to CrPC 125 as given below: General
process of law making in a democracy
1. The citizens of India have the duty to be bound by its constitution and
laws, and so also have a right to be represented in law making, and getting
their opinion heard and considered. I hope that this letter will be taken in
same spirit and will not be ignored, for ignoring it will be ignoring the voice
of citizens for whose purported benefit the changes to law are being
proposed.
2. I would recommend that the law commission involve the citizens in
further proposed law changes. The legal drafting can be left to legal
experts, but the common citizens cannot be denied their representation on
the excuse that they do not have the legal expertise. Just as not knowing
the law is not an excuse for a citizen, so drafting a law without involving
citizens should also not be any excuse for lawmakers. Loopholes and
dangers of proposed amendments to CrPC 125
1. It is mentioned that law commission has proposed these
recommendations, but no details are available on the statistics, studies, or
research conducted to arrive at the recommendations. The courts in India
are burdened with work and do not even provide statistics of court cases
in RTI replies based on same reason of lack of resources, so it is a foregone
conclusion that no study of CrPC 125 cases settled or pending in courts was
done in making these recommendations. It is highly desirable that any
recommendations to a particular law like CrPC 125 which has voluminous
statistics in terms of court cases past and pending, must be made after
careful analysis of such statistics.
2. Daughters under Hindu Succession Laws are entitled to parent’s
property. So there is no legal bias against married Hindu women when it
comes to inheriting properties from parents. If a married woman is
deserted, then she has legal recourse to parents' property if she has no
other source of income left. If that is not considered legally acceptable,
then the law commission is effectively creating a presumption that a
married woman loses right to parents' property after marriage! So the
property of wife's parents must also be declared if the current proposal to
declare husband's assets is passed.
3. The proposal to amend CrPC 125 to make a husband declare assets
smacks of bias against men and disempowerment of women; as if women
are not owners of assets and property! If this proposal is implemented,
then a wife must also be liable to declare assets to be able to institute
proceedings under CrPC 125. Otherwise it will create one more bias and
presumption in law that a man may want to hide assets to escape
maintenance, but a woman will not hide assets to claim unjust
maintenance. Kindly note that current provisions of CrPC 125 do not give
maintenance to woman if she has deserted her husband without a just
cause. The underlying rationale of not creating fissures in family structure
on account of small marital issues must not be disturbed by any new
changes to CrPC 125.
4. If a husband is to declare assets, then he should be made to declare
liabilities too. It is not just that a husband may have to pay maintenance
from assets when he has liabilities to take care of. For example, if a man
buys a house on loan then the loan and interest repayment must be
deducted to arrive at net assets or liability figure.
5. Such changes to law could actually worsen women's position in society.
Even after Dowry Prohibition Act was passed in 1961, and IPC 498a was
passed in 1983, the 'evil' of dowry has not been eliminated. Indeed it is
reported by sociologists that dowry has become common in communities
where it was not a prevalent custom before. With women being given
entitlement on husband's assets, and not enforcing their right on parent's
assets, they will be considered even more of a 'burden' by parents, who
would wish them to be married off so they can be entitled to husband's
property and disentitled (not legally but socially) from parents' property. It
would then increase the practice of dowry since the practice of giving
daughter's share of parents' wealth as 'dowry' will have one more
supporting argument from husband's side to safeguard themselves from
any future liability if the wife separates and institutes proceedings for
maintenance under CrPC 125.
6. The practice of declaring and signing list of gifts given during marriage
under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 has never been followed in
practice. Has the law commission considered how this particular change in
law is proposed to be enforced in practice? Has the law commission
considered the total cost of changing law in terms of law enforcement, as
proposed by Honourable Law Minister Mr Veerappa Moily recently?
7. It is a wrong presumption that a proposed law change will only be used
in its positive intentions, and will not be misused. The cases of misuse of
laws in Indian courts are plenty, and a weak or non-existent enforcing of
provisions of perjury and false evidence incentivizes such misuse. As an
example in point, the number of arrests made in Delhi under IPC 498a had
a sharp drop from 2688 in 2007 to 725 in 2008, as per data from NCRB. This
happened after a circular was issued in Delhi that any arrest under IPC
498a must require permission from DCP. The fact that number of arrests
dropped dramatically when the number of complaints did not clearly
indicates the scope of abuse of powers by various government agencies,
the Delhi police in this case. But the other government departments
cannot either be given a blanket assumption of honest implementation of
proposed changes to laws without bias and corruption. Proposed change
to CrPC 125 must be evaluated under this light too. Feedback for any
change to maintenance laws including current proposed changes to CrPC
125
1. There are plethora of laws which give maintenance to women from
husbands. They include CrPC 125, PWDVA, HMA Sec 24/25, HAMA Sec 18
and so on. It is not clear why the law makers are only interested in creating
more legal provisions and complexity, and not ensuring that existing laws
are enforced properly in a timely manner.
2. If the wife is to benefit from the assets of the husband then wife also
must be made to pay for husband’s liabilities. A wife cannot choose to
cherry pick on the assets and benefit from the same. The essence of the
Hindu Marriage rites is that the wife is an equal partner of the husband in
good times as well as in bad times. The legal system has no right to make
the wife into a parasite who lives off the assists of her host, but has no
responsibilities if the host has liabilities. This is against the principles of
Natural Justice.
3. By following legal laws and practice in other nations, only property
acquired after marriage must be considered for any such proposed
asset/liability declaration by husband and wife in any of the maintenance
laws. It has simple rationale that it creates incentive for couples to stay in
marriage and a disincentive against using marriage as a spring board to
acquiring un-earned property in a short time. The principle of moral hazard
must be taken care of in all maintenance laws.
4. The law does not create any incentive to create marriages, and it must
not create any incentives for any party to break marriage and family,
especially keeping in mind the principles of natural justice, and interests of
children in mind.
5. Marriages with duration less than 10 years should not entitle woman or
man to maintenance under any proposed changes.
maintenance laws of other countries, e.g. in Texas state in US.
 lying on oath in HMA sec 13, 24. Any Punishment provisions?
This is my friend's case whio is a ex-senior in college and he is truely
innocent.....His Wife is having an affair His Wife has filed divorce HMA as
per sec 13 and maint as per 24. He is defendent Any there any Punishment
provisions against the act of "lying on oath in HMA sec 13, 24" especially
about employment and earning details? Is there any provision in CPC?
Circumstance and facts of the case are as below: Petitioner-Wife lyed
on/under oath in at least four affidavits, from 1st day of suit filing (divorce
petition as well as int maint app) that she was "unemployed" but
.....subsequently she was made to admit about employment .....and then
she was also made to file her Tax returns and employment joining
date/letter in court, before filing for maint as per sec 24..she did admit
that she employed just a two weeks before!!!!! .....But she blatantly
submited also the copy of tax returns and Emp Letter in court, which
conclusively revealed that she was working ever since the date which is
long long before the date of filing the divorce petition!!! i.e. she was
employed not since just a few weeks before the int. maint App, but even
before the divorce petition which was filed almost 1.5 years back But even
after all this, biased(rather corrupt)) Hon Judge went went ahead to grant
the int. maint to wife, eventhough he lost his job a few months before to
fight with his boss!!!! What remedy is there to help the innocent husband
in such a case? IPC 195 r/w CRPC 340 is for grave(murder) criminal case
related perjury, I believe. What is the remedy provisions in CPC in family
court suit? The Aggrieved husband prefers to take this matter upto SC (I
honestly suggected him), if he is denied justice in lower courts.
My Questions:
Since the Petitioner(wife) has lied on oath in written affidats and pleading
right from beginning, she has approached the court with unclean hands,
suppression of material facts and crucial data, Isn't the whole divorce-suit
(rather wife plea only...because husband has also counter claimed it) liable
to be dismissed Isn't the order on maint liable to be revoked and rescinded
in preferably in review in same court, or revision in HC? which mode would
be better?
What steps the husband needs to take? against errant wife (emotional
bond is broken and marriage can't be restored due to facts, and his son, 12
yr age, is with him, ever since wife eloped with her boss/lover!!!
Hence he wants to teach her a lesson...He won't feel bad now .....if she is
sent to prisons also!!! But how......His son also looked distubed, lagging is
studies and not mising with his friends also, and started to hate his
mother..very tragic!!) Please suggest all options, provisions, ways forward I
suggested him to file for review initially, in the same court (but very
doubtful since wife and her lover (who shamelessly accompanies her there
also) seems have managed many people out there, as opined by husband )
498a, DV female bashers....please help to create a good citation helpful to
husbands this time! This is a real case of errant wife and she be brought to
books (But How??) Kindly advise..
Supreme Court of India.
Equivalent citations: 1995 SCC (1) 421, JT 1994 (7) 459.
Bench: H B.L..
PETITIONER: CHANDRA SHASHI Vs. RESPONDENT: ANIL KUMAR VERMA ...
This is another good judgment which can be used II its there.
DALIP SINGH Appellant (s) VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
Respondent(s)
III ITEM NO.101(PH)
COURT NO.11
SECTION XI
SUPREMECOURTOFINDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 5239 OF 2002
 DALIP SINGH Appellant (s) VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
Respondent(s) (With appln(s) for exemption from filing O.T.,directions and
office report )
Date: 03/12/2009
This Appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASOK
KUMAR GANGULY
For Appellant(s) Mr. Shambhu Prasad Singh, Adv. Mr. Prashante Jha, adv.
Ms. Manjula Gupta,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. L.K. Pandey,Adv. Mr.
Pramod Swarup, Sr.Adv. Mr. S.K. Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Amit Singh, adv. Ms.
Sushma Verma, Adv. Mr. Chandra Prakash Pandey ,Adv Dr. Krishan Singh
Chauhan ,Adv Mr. K.C. Lamba, adv. Mr. Chand Kiran, Adv. Mr. Kartar Singh,
Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
This appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed reportable order. (Sukhbir
Paul Kaur) (Mithlesh Gupta) Court Master Court Master (Signed reportable
order is placed on the file)
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5239 OF 2002
DALIP SINGH Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
Respondent(s) O R D E R
1. For many centuries, Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e.,
`Satya' (truth) and `Ahimsa' (non-violence).
Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to
ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of
justice delivery system which was in vogue in pre- independence era and
the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the
consequences. However, post- independence period has seen drastic
changes in our value system. The materialism has over-shadowed the old
ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those
involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood,
misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. In
last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to
this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to
falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet
the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from
time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a
litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the
pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief,
interim or final.
2. In Hari Narain v. Badri Das AIR 1963 SC 1558, this Court adverted to the
aforesaid rule and revoked the leave granted to the appellant by making
the following observations: "It is of utmost importance that in making
material statements and setting forth grounds in applications for special
leave made under Article 136 of the Constitution, care must be taken not
to make any statements which are inaccurate, untrue and misleading. In
dealing with applications for special leave, the Court naturally takes
statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at their
face value and it would be unfair to betray the confidence of the Court by
making statements which are untrue and misleading. Thus, if at the
hearing of the appeal the Supreme Court is satisfied that the material
statements made by the appellant in his application for special leave are
inaccurate and misleading, and the respondent is entitled to contend that
the appellant may have obtained special leave from the Supreme Court on
the strength of what he characterizes as misrepresentations of facts
contained in the petition for special leave, the Supreme Court may come to
the conclusion that in such a case special leave granted to the appellant
ought to be revoked." 3. In Welcome Hotel and others v. State of Andhra
Pradesh and others etc. AIR 1983 SC 1015, the Court held that a party
which has misled the Court in passing an order in its favour is not entitled
to be heard on the merits of the case.
4. In G. Narayanaswamy Reddy and others v. Governor of Karnataka and
another AIR 1991 SC 1726, the Court denied relief to the appellant who
had concealed the fact that the award was not made by the Land
Acquisition Officer within the time specified in Section 11-A of the Land
Acquisition Act because of the stay order passed by the High Court. While
dismissing the special leave petition, the Court observed: "Curiously
enough, there is no reference in the Special Leave Petitions to any of the
stay orders and we came to know about these orders only when the
respondents appeared in response to the notice and filed their counter
affidavit. In our view, the said interim orders have a direct bearing on the
question raised and the non- disclosure of the same certainly amounts to
suppression of material facts. On this ground alone, the Special Leave
Petitions are liable to be rejected. It is well settled in law that the relief
under Article 136 of the Constitution is discretionary and a petitioner who
approaches this Court for such relief must come with frank and full
disclosure of facts. If he fails to do so and suppresses material facts, his
application is liable to be dismissed. We accordingly dismiss the Special
Leave Petitions."
5. In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. v. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs.
and others JT 1993 (6) SC 331, the Court held that where a preliminary
decree was obtained by withholding an important document from the
court, the party concerned deserves to be thrown out at any stage of the
litigation.
6. In Prestige Lights Ltd. V. State Bank of India (2007) 8 SCC 449, it was
held that in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
the High Court is not just a court of law, but is also a court of equity and a
person who invokes the High Court's jurisdiction under article 226 of the
Constitution is duty bound to place all the facts before the court without
any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts or twisted facts
have been placed before the High Court then it will be fully justified in
refusing to entertain petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
This Court referred to the judgment of Scrutton, L.J. in R v Kensington
Income Tax Commissioners (1917) 1 K.B. 486, and observed: "In exercising
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court will
always keep in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such
jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses
relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the Court, then the
Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter on merits.
The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous
litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. The very basis
of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct
facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are
distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become
impossible."
7. In A.P and others v. Government of A.P. and others,
AIR 2007 SC 1546,
the Court held that Article 136 does not confer a right of appeal on any
party. It confers discretion on this Court to grant leave to appeal in
appropriate cases. In other words, the Constitution has not made the
Supreme Court a regular Court of Appeal or a Court of Error. This Court
only intervenes where justice, equity and good conscience require such
intervention.
8. In Sunil Poddar & Ors. v Union Bank of India (2008) 2 326, the Court
held that while exercising discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under
Article 136 of the Constitution, the facts and circumstances of the case
should be seen in their entirety to find out if there is miscarriage of justice.
If the appellant has not come forward with clean hands, has not candidly
disclosed all the facts that he is aware of and he intends to delay the
proceedings, then the Court will non-suit him on the ground of
contumacious conduct.
9. In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others (2008) 12 SCC
481, the court held that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article
32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is
extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the
petitioner approaching the Writ Court must come with clean hands and
put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or
suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid
disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of
misleading the Court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold
without considering the merits of the claim. The same rule was reiterated
in G. Jayshree and others v. Bhagwandas S. Patel and others (2009) 3 SCC
141. 10. This appeal, which is directed against order dated 21.5.2001
passed by the Allahabad High Court is illustrative of how unscrupulous
litigants can mislead the authorities entrusted with the task of
implementing the provisions of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings
Act, 1960 (for short, "the Act") and the courts for retaining possession of
the surplus land. The tenure- holder Praveen Singh did not file statement
in terms of Section 9(2-A) of the Act in respect of his holding as on
24.1.1971. After about four years, the Prescribed Authority issued notice
dated 29.11.1975 under Section 10(2) of the Act and called upon Shri
Praveen Singh to show cause as to why the statement prepared under
Section 10(1) of the Act may not be taken as correct and his land may not
be declared surplus accordingly. A copy of the statement was sent to Shri
Praveen Singh along with the notice in C.L.H. Form No.4. For the sake of
convenient reference, the notice is reproduced below: "C.L.H. FORM NO. 4
(See Rule 8) (Form of Notice under Section 10(2) of the imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1961) To, Name of tenure-holder Sri Praveen
Singh With parentage s/o. Shri Raghubir Singh and Address r/o Village
Tisotara, P.O. Khas, Pargana Kirat Pur, Tehsil Najibabad, District Bijnor.
Whereas you have failed to submit a statement/have furnished
incomplete/incorrect statement in respect of all your holdings in the State
of Uttar Pradesh including holdings of your family members with all the
required particulars within the time mentioned in the notice in C.L.H. Form
1, published under Section 9; And whereas the statement of all holdings
held by you in the State on 8th June, 1973, statement showing proposed
ceiling area applicable to you and the proposed surplus land have been
prepared under sub-section (1) of Section 10, they are sent to you
herewith and you are hereby called upon to show cause within a period of
15 days from the date of service of this notice, why the said statement be
not taken as correct. On your failure to dispute the correctness of the
statements in any court, within the time allowed, the aforesaid statement
shall be treated as final and ceiling area applicable to you and the surplus
land shall be determined accordingly. Given under my hand and seal of the
Court this day of 29-11-1975. S/d- Signature of the Prescribed Authority of
the Sub- Division Prescribed Authority Tehsil Najibabad."
11. The notice was delivered to Shri Praveen Singh on 3.12.1975, but he
neither filed any objection to the proposed determination of his surplus
land nor sought extension of time for the said purpose. After service of
notice, the Prescribed Authority adjourned the case on 10.12.1975 and
again on 19.12.1975 apparently with the hope that the tenure-holder may
file objection to the statement prepared under Section 10(1). This is
evident from the proceeding sheets of the two dates, which are
reproduced below: Proceedings dated 10.12.1975 10.12.1965 File received
after service of notice on the tenure-holder on 3.12.1975. It is ordered that
the file be put up on 19.12.1975 after receipt of objections. Sd/- Prescribed
Authority Proceedings dated 19.12.1975 19.12.1975 File put up. The
tenure-holder has not filed any objection despite service. It is ordered that
the file be put up for ex-parte orders on 27.12.1975. Sd/- Prescribed
Authority"
12. On 27.12.1975, the Prescribed Authority noted that Shri Praveen Singh
has not filed any objection and declared that 18.22 acres of irrigated land
was surplus in the hands of the tenure- holder. After six months and
twelve days, Shri Praveen Singh submitted an application dated 8.7.1976
along with what was termed as an affidavit before the Prescribed
Authority and prayed that ex parte order dated 27.12.1975 may be set
aside and he may be given opportunity to file objections and tender
evidence. The Prescribed Authority rejected the application on the same
day i.e. 8.7.1976 by observing that no valid ground has been made out for
reconsidering the matter after six months. The appeal preferred by Shri
Praveen Singh against the order of the Prescribed Authority was dismissed
by Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Allahabad (Appellate Authority) in
default because no one appeared on the date of hearing. The restoration
application filed by Shri Praveen Singh was dismissed on 27.8.1980. He
then challenged the orders of the Prescribed Authority and Appellate
Authority in Writ Petition No. 8342/1980, which was allowed by the High
Court and the matter was remitted to the Appellate Authority with a
direction to decide the application of Shri Praveen Singh afresh in
accordance with law.
13. In compliance of the direction given by the High Court, the Appellate
Authority reconsidered the appeal of Shri Praveen Singh but dismissed the
same on the ground that the tenure-holder had not filed an application
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay and
even in the application filed for setting aside the ex parte order, no cause
was shown for the delay. The Appellate Authority also observed that the
tenure-holder had not denied receipt of notice dated 29.11.1975 issued
under Section 10(2) of the Act, but did not file any objection till the passing
of ex parte order on 27.12.1975 and that his assertion of having come to
know of the ex parte order from Lekhpal Halqa on 7.7.1976 is not
believable. It appears that after remand of the matter by the High Court,
Shri Praveen Singh died and, therefore, his legal representatives (including
the appellant herein) were substituted in his place.
14. The legal representatives of Shri Praveen Singh jointly filed Civil
Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 22790/1990 and prayed for quashing of
orders dated 27.12.1975, 8.7.1976, 7.8.1990 passed by the Prescribed
Authority and the Appellate Authority respectively. They also prayed for
issue of a direction to the Appellate Authority to remand the case to the
Prescribed Authority for entertaining their objections. In paragraph 3 of
the writ petition, the following statement was made: "That the petitioner's
late father, against whom the proceedings had been initiated under
Section 10(2) of the Ceiling Act, filed application on 8.7.1976 supported by
an affidavit stating therein clearly that he was seriously ill for about ten
months as such he was not in a position to file objection, and as a matter
of fact he did not have any knowledge of the date of the proceedings that
were being conducted before the prescribed authority. True copy of the
application dated 8.7.1976 of petitioners' late father is annexed herewith
as
Annexure 2.
True copy of the affidavit filed in support of the application dated
8.7.1976 of the petitioners' father is annexed herewith as annexure 3."
(Emphasis added)
 15. By an order dated 7.9.1990, the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad
High Court stayed the operation of the orders passed by the Prescribed
Authority and the Appellate Authority. The interim order remained
operative till 21.5.2001 that is the date on which the writ petition was
finally dismissed and during the interregnum the appellant continued to
enjoy the property.
16. In the special leave petition filed against the order of the High Court,
notice was issued on 12.10.2001, but the appellants prayer for stay was
declined. Thereafter, the surplus land of the tenure-holder was distributed
among the landless persons who were joined as parties pursuant to order
dated 27.3.2006 passed in I.A. No. 9/2004.
17. After service of notice, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed counter in the form
of an affidavit of Shri Pradip Kumar Singh, Additional Tehsildar, District
Bijnor, U.P. In his affidavit, Shri Pradip Kumar gave details of the steps
taken by the Prescribed Authority in terms of Section 10(1) and 10(2) of
the Act and made a categorical assertion that notice issued on 29.11.1975
was duly served upon Shri Praveen Singh on 3.12.1975. This is evident from
paragraphs 4(iv) and (v) of the counter affidavit read as under: "(iv) That
the averments of facts made in the list of dates against date 7.7.1976 are
not admitted being incorrect. The notice in CLH Form No. 4 having been
served on the tenure-holder on 3.12.1975, it was for him to have filed his
objection. It was for the tenure-holder to have managed his affairs. It is
not for a Court or an Authority to communicate to the tenure-holder each
and every order passed by it once service of the notice is complete, the Act
does not require that each and every date of proceedings and the copy or
information about the final order ex parte or otherwise be served on him.
The tenure-holder avoided to file his objections since he had none. The
statement of surplus land is prepared by the revenue authorities in
accordance with the provisions of the Act which is prepared on the basis of
revenue records of land held by a tenure-holder in his name and there is
`Presumption of correctness of the revenue record.' (v) That the averments
of fact in list of date against date 8.7.1976 are not admitted as stated. It is
submitted that an application dated 8.7.1976 filed by the tenure-holder
did not dispute service of notice in CLH Form No. 4 dated 29.11.1975. The
application was of a general nature. If a tenure-holder having been asked
to file objections within 15 days of the date of service of him `chooses not
to do so', would proceed to a presumption that he has nothing to say.
Section 11 o the Act provides that where a tenure-holder chooses not to
dispute and not to file any objection to the statement prepared by the
Prescribed Authority under Section 10 of the Act within the stipulated
period, the Prescribed Authority `shall' accordingly determine the surplus
land of the tenure- holder. Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act further
provides that where an application is made by a tenure- holder within
thirty days of the date of an order under sub-section
(11) of the Act, that being a statutory duly cast on the Prescribed
Authority. In the present case the Prescribed Authority after passing order
dated 27.12.1975 fixed the next date as 27.1.1976 i.e. after 30 days and it
is only on 27.1.1976 that the Prescribed Authority sent notification
regarding publication of surplus land in official Gazette which was so
published on 5.6.1976." 18. Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, son of the appellant
Dalip Singh and grandson of late Shri Praveen Singh filed rejoinder affidavit
dated 18th February, 2002. In paragraph 3 of the rejoinder affidavit Shri
Sunil Kumar Singh made the following statement :- "That it is denied
categorically that the father of the petitioner had ever received the notice
dated 29.11.1975 along with the statement of surplus land, prepared
under section 10(1) of the Act. It is humbly stated that father of the
petitioner could not file any show cause without going through the above
referred statement prepared under Section 10(1) of the Act."
 19. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and scrutinized the
record. In our opinion, the appeal is liable to be dismissed only on the
ground that the tenure-holder Shri Praveen Singh did not state correct
facts in the application filed by him on 8.7.1976 before the Prescribed
Authority for setting aside the ex parte order and the appellant did not
approach the High Court with clean hands inasmuch as, by making a
misleading statement in paragraph 3 of the writ petition, an impression
was created that the tenure-holder did not know of the proceedings
initiated by the Prescribed Authority. By making the said statement, the
appellant succeeded in persuading the High Court to pass an interim order
which resulted in frustrating the efforts made by the concerned authority
to distribute the surplus land among landless persons. Even before this
Court, a patently false statement has been made in the rejoinder affidavit
on the issue of receipt of notice dated 29.11.1975 by Shri Praveen Singh.
20. A perusal of application dated 8.7.1976 submitted by Shri Praveen
Singh for setting aside ex parte order dated 27.12.1975 passed by the
Prescribed Authority makes it clear that he had pleaded his continuous
illness for ten months as the cause for his inability to file objection. In
paragraph 2 of the application, Shri Praveen Singh made a suggestive
assertion that he had no knowledge of the proceedings initiated by the
Prescribed Authority and he came to know about the case having been
decided ex parte only on 7.7.1976 when he went to Lekhpal to procure
memo. There was not even a whisper in the application that notice dated
29.11.1975 issued by the Prescribed Authority under Section 10(2) of the
Act had not been served upon him and on that account he could not file
objections within 15 days. The application filed by Shri Praveen Singh was
not supported by any medical certificate or other evidence which could
prima facie establish that he was really sick for ten months. This is the
reason why the Prescribed Authority refused to reconsider order dated
27.11.1975 and the Appellate Authority declined to entertain his prayer for
remand of the case to the Prescribed Authority for the purpose of fresh
determination of surplus area case. Not withstanding this, in the writ
petition filed before the High Court a misleading statement was made that
due to serious illness, Shri Praveen Singh could not file objection and, as a
matter of fact, he did not have any knowledge of the dates of proceedings
which were conducted by the Prescribed Authority. In view of that
statement, the learned Single Judge of the High Court felt persuaded to
stay the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and Appellate
Authority which, as mentioned above, resulted in frustration of the action
to be taken by the concerned authority for distribution of the surplus land
to landless persons for a good period of more than eleven years and
enabled the heirs of Shri Praveen Singh to retain possession of the surplus
land and enjoy the same. Before the High Court also, no evidence was
produced in support of the assertion regarding serious illness of Shri
Praveen Singh. Insofar as this Court is concerned, Shri Sunil Kumar Singh,
grandson of Shri Praveen Singh and son of the appellant, boldly made a
false statement that his grandfather did not receive notice dated
29.11.1975 along with the statement of surplus land prepared under
Section 10(1) and he could not file any show cause without going through
the statement. We are amazed at the degree of audacity with which Shri
Sunil Kumar Singh could make a patently false statement on oath.
21. From what we have mentioned above, it is clear that in this case
efforts to mislead the authorities and the courts have transmitted through
three generations and the conduct of the appellant and his son to mislead
the High Court and this Court cannot, but be treated as reprehensible.
They belong to the category of persons who not only attempt, but succeed
in polluting the course of justice. Therefore, we do not find any
justification to interfere with the order under challenge or entertain the
appellant's prayer for setting aside the orders passed by the Prescribed
Authority and the Appellate Authority.
22. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. We would have saddled the
appellants with exemplary costs but, keeping in view the fact that
possession of the surplus land was taken in 2002 and the same has been
distributed among landless poor persons, we refrain from doing so.
.......................J. [G.S.Singhvi] .......................J. [Asok Kumar Ganguly] New
Delhi December 3, 2009 IV
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 3044 of 2003 RAM SARAN Vs. I.G. OF POLICE, CRPF &
OTHERS
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARIJIT PASAYAT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN
KUMAR
Dated: February 2, 2006
A person who seeks equity must come with clean hands. He, who comes
to the court with false claims, cannot plead equity nor would the court be
justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour. A person who seeks
equity must act in a fair and equitable manner. Equity jurisdiction cannot
be exercised in the case of a person who got the appointment on the basis
of a false caste certificate by playing a fraud. No sympathy and equitable
consideration can come to his rescue. We are of the view that equity or
compassion cannot be allowed to bend the arms of law in a case where an
individual acquired a status by practising fraud."
10. Though the case related to a false caste certificate, the logic indicated
clearly applies to the present case.
11. This is a case which does not deserve any leniency otherwise it would
be giving premium to a person who admittedly committed forgery. V It
should give a lot of heart and courage to fellow victims of false complaints.
Court should dispose of the application U/s 340 CrPC first Court : High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad Brief
if an application is moved in the pending case bringing to the notice of the
court that any false evidence knowing well has been filed or fabricated in
such proceedings, the court should dispose of the said application first
before proceeding any further or before recording of further evidence.
Citation : not searched reporters by me Judgment : Court No.29 High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow Writ Petition No.
(M/S) of 2002
Syed Nazim Husain Vs. The Additional Principal Judge Family Court &
another Hon'ble A. Mateen, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as
well as learned A.G.A. Since a very trivial point is involved I propose to
dispose of the petition at this initial stage. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer that the order dated
24.10.2002 be quashed. From the order dated 24.10.2002 it comes out that
the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court on the application,
moved by the petitioner under Section 340, 344 Cr.P.C. instead of
disposing of the same had postponed disposal of the said application and
ordered that said application may be disposed of after evidence is
recorded in case No. 566/89. In my view, if an application is moved in the
pending case bringing to the notice of the court that any false evidence
knowing well has been filed or fabricated in such proceedings, the court
should dispose of the said application first before proceeding any further
or before recording of further evidence. In the circumstances, I dispose of
the present application and direct the Additional Principal Judge Family
Court to dispose of the application so moved by the petitioner under
Section 340, 344 Cr.P.C. before proceeding further in accordance with law.
With the above observations the petition is disposed of finally. 9.1.2003
sd- A.Mateen Total likes :
 1 times Reply 8 years ago Gajender Singh ca Likes:
7 Points: 219 A very good Judgement by Punjab and Haryana High Court in
Section 24 application. The court can not be silent, when an application
has been moved u/s 340 CrPC r/w 195 CrPC that someone has lied under
affidavit in the court.
In the instant case, the husband had moved an application for perjury,
which was not decided by the court. One thing I have seen in multitude of
cases, where perjury application has been filed for lying about salary etc by
wife, the wife does not press for maintenance amount thereafter. The crux
of the judgement is as follows: A glance through the impugned order
would reveal that the learned trial Court has given a go by to the
provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. The approach adopted by the learned trial
Court is unwholesome and is depreciable. The impugned order is
absolutely silent as to whether the application has been dismissed or
allowed, if so for which reasons. In consequence of the preceding
discussion the trial Court is directed to decide the application under
discussion in accordance with law.
This appeal stands disposed of accordingly. CRA No. 197 SB of 2010 (O&M)
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA
No. 197 SB of 2010 (O&M)
Date of decision: 25-1-2010
Suxxla .........Appellant Vs Shashi .........Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present: Shri K.S.Boparai,
Advocate, for the appellant. HARBANS LAL, J. This appeal is directed
against the order dated 5.12.2008 Annexure P-1 passed by the court of
learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Saheed Bhagat Singh Nagar vide which
he allowed the petition moved under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
for restitution of conjugal rights leaving the parties to bear their own costs
and rejected the application moved under Section 195/340 Cr.P.C. I have
heard the learned counsel for the appellant, besides perusing the record
with due care and circumspection. The learned counsel for the appellant
has submitted with great eloquence that after the respondent admitted in
her cross-examination about her employment, salary and inheritance of
the landed property, she again placed on record another affidavit dated
27.8.2008 solemnly affirming therein that she had inadvertently not
mentioned about the source of income as well as employment in the
earlier affidavit dated 14.8.2008. Thereafter the appellant moved an
application under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. for initiating proceedings against
the respondent for submitting a false affidavit CRA No. 197 SB of 2010
(O&M) 2 before the learned trial Court, in order to get more maintenance
from the appellant. The learned trial Court had assured the appellant that
his said application shall be decided alongwith the main case. While
deciding the main petition, in paragraph No. 13 of the judgment it has
been observed that "in support of her claim for interim maintenance under
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the respondent/applicant had made
certain assertions, which were found to be totally false and the same had
apparently been done by her in a deliberate manner. Consequently even
an application for initiating suitable proceedings against her on account of
her having submitted a false affidavit was also filed by the petitioner on
3.9.2008. Thereafter, the respondent did not press her claim for interim
maintenance, but the same did not absolve her of the liability of the
aforesaid lapse. This court, however, does not wish to initiate any such
proceedings against the respondent with the hope that sooner or later, the
parties may be in a position to resolve their dispute or else this young
couple may adopt such other means so that they can part their ways in a
peaceful manner and therefore, with a view to avoid undue complication
of the matrimonial dispute, no action on account of submitting of the
above false affidavit etc. is being initiated against the respondent." It is
further argued that the learned trial Court has overlooked the fact that the
respondent has used the false affidavit in the judicial proceedings.
Therefore, all the ingredients of the offences of cheating, forging and
perjury etc. are made out and consequently, the order passed by the
learned trial Court in not initiating the proceedings under Section 195 read
with Section 340 Cr.P.C. is illegal. CRA No. 197 SB of 2010 (O&M) 3 I have
given a deep and thoughtful consideration to these submissions. A careful
perusal of the observations rendered by the learned trial Court in
paragraph No. 13 of the impugned judgment would reveal that there is not
even a shred of reference to the application moved under Section 195 read
with Section 340 Cr.P.C. This apart, no specific reasons have been
apportioned for not initiating the action on the basis of the alleged
affidavit. The said application having been moved under the provisions of
the Code of Criminal Procedure was required to be disposed of separately.
It was not desirable on the part of the learned trial Court to decide the said
application in a slip shod manner by making mere passing reference to the
alleged affidavit. In the application moved under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C.
if the Court deems fit,the inquiry has to be held whereas in the present
one, the impugned order is absolutely silent as to whether or not inquiry
was held. There is specific procedure which is to be followed while
disposing of an application moved under Section 340 of the Criminal
Procedure Code. Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code reads as
under:- "340.Procedure in cases mentioned in Sec.195--
(1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise any
Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an
inquiry should be made into any offence referred to to in cl (b) of sub-
section (1) of Section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in
relation to to a proceeding in that Court, or as the case may be, in respect
of of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that
Court, CRA No. 197 SB of 2010 (O&M) 4 such Court may, after such
preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary.
(a) record a finding to that effect.
(b) make a complaint thereof in writing
(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction.
(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such
Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non- bailable and the Court thinks it
necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and
(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such
Magistrate.
(2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section
(1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court has neither
made a complaint under sub-section
(1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of
such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is
subordinate within the meaning of sub-section
(4) of Sec.195.
(3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed
(a) where the Court making complaint is a High Court, by such officer of
the Court as the Court may appoint.
(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court, and (4) In this
section, "Court" has the same meaning as in CRA No. 197 SB of 2010
(O&M) 5 Sec.195." A glance through the impugned order would reveal that
the learned trial Court has given a go by to the provisions of Section 340
Cr.P.C. The approach adopted by the learned trial Court is unwholesome
and is depreciable. The impugned order is absolutely silent as to whether
the application has been dismissed or allowed, if so for which reasons. In
consequence of the preceding discussion the trial Court is directed to
decide the application under discussion in accordance with law. This
appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(HARBANS LAL) JUDGE January 25, 2010
RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes/No
Karnataka High Court Equivalent citations: AIR 1975 Kant 162, ILR 1975
KAR 1000, 1975 (1) KarLJ 506
Bench: M Sadanandaswamy V. Narayana Bhat vs E. Subbanna Bhat
on 2/12/1974
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant is the plaintiff. The suit was for recovery of damages of
Rs. 1,000 for defamation'. The defendent-respondent presented a
complaint on 28-11-1964 to the Station House Officer, Puttur Police
Station, imputing an offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code
against the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that the defamatory statements
contained in the complaint brought him disrepute and infamy in society.
He alleged that Police Officers came to his house, questioned him about
the contents of the complaint and wanted to search his house. He also
alleged that he had to go with the police and remain in the Police station
till the evening and had to visit the Police station on several occasions on
account of this complaint. The defendant admitted having lodged a
complaint against the plaintiff to the police and asserted that the plaintiff
along with other persons mentioned in the complaint petition committed
acts attributed to them in the complaint. He also pleaded that the
statements made in the complaint were made in the interests of law and
order and to seek justice. The trial court held that the complaint filed by
the defendant is not false or frivolous or vexatious to the knowledge of the
de- fondant, that the plaintiff failed to show that he was defamed in any
way by the allegations in the complaint and dismissed the suit without
going into the question of quantum of damages. The lower appellate court
held that the imputations made in the complaint petition are defamatory
per se. It further held that the defendant's plea of justification by proof
had not been substantiated. But it came to the conclusion that the
statements contained in the complaint are protected by absolute privilege
and that the question of malice or want of justification does not arise.
Hence, it confirmed the decision of the trial court.
2. The complaint was enquired into by the Police and found to be false.
Thereafter, the police prosecuted the defendant for filing a false complaint
and he was convicted, but the conviction was set aside in appeal.
3. It is contended by Mr. Ganapathi Bhat, appearing for the plaintiff-
appellant, that the statements contained in the complaint filed by the
defendant to the police are not covered by absolute privilege and that the
defendant could claim only qualified privilege for the same. It is therefore
urged by him that the defendant must prove that he made the statements
in good faith and that if he succeeds in proving the same then the burden
shifts on to the plaintiff to prove malice and that the finding of the lower
appellate court is erroneous. The question for decision in this appeal is
whether the defendant could claim absolute privilege for the statements
made in the complaint or only qualified privilege for the same.

4. In Watson v. McEwan, (1905) AC 480, H.L., the question was whether

absolute privilege protected a witness against the consequences of
statements made to the client and solicitor in preparing the brief for trial.
Lord Halsbury observed as follows at page 487: "It appears to me that the
privilege which surrounds the evidence actually given in a Court of Justice
necessarily involves the same privilege in the case of making a statement
to a solicitor and other persons who are engaged in the conduct of
proceedings in Courts of justice when what is intended to be stated in a
Court of justice is narrated to them that is, to the solicitor or writer to the
Signet. If it were otherwise, I think what one of the learned counsel has
with great cogency pointed out would apply-- that from time to time in
these various efforts which have been made to make actual witnesses
responsible in the shape of an action against them for the evidence they
have given, the difficulty in the way of those who were bringing the action
would have been removed at once by saying, "I do not bring the action
against you for what you said in the witness box, but I bring the action
against you for what you told the solicitor you were about to say in the
witness box". If that could be done the object for which the privilege exists
is gone, because then no witness could be called: no one would know
whether what he was going to say was relevant to the question in debate
between the parties. A witness would only have to say, "I shall not tell you
anything; I may have an action brought against me tomorrow if I do;
therefore I shall not give you any information at all." It is very obvious that
the public policy which renders the protection of witnesses necessary for
the administration of justice must as a necessary consequence involve that
which is a step towards and is part of the administration of justice namely,
the preliminary examination of witnesses to find out what they can prove.
It may be that to some extent it seems to impose a hardship, but after all
the hardship is not to be compared with that which would arise if it were
impossible to administer justice, because people would be afraid to give
their . testimony."
In AIR 1924 All 535 (Majju v. Lachman Prasad)
the Full Bench held that in the case of a report made to a Police Officer,
the question whether it is covered by absolute privilege is governed by the
English common law and since the statements made in the course of a
judicial proceeding are absolutely privileged in England, they must be held
to be absolutely privileged in India following an earlier decision of the Full
Bench of the same court in ILR 40 All 341 = (AIR 1918 All 69). In Halsbury's
Laws of England, Vol. 24, third Edition, at page 49, it is stated as follows:--
"89. Absolute privilege: No action lies, whether against Judges, counsel,
jury, witnesses, or parties, for words spoken in the ordinary course of any
proceedings before any court or tribunal recognised by law. It is manifest
that the administration of justice would be paralysed if those who were
engaged in it were liable to actions of libel or slander upon the imputation
that they had acted maliciously and not bona fide. Thus, all witnesses or
parties speaking with reference to the matter before the court have
privilege for their evidence, whether oral or in writing, relevant or
irrelevant, malicious or not. The privilege extends not only to words
spoken but also to documents properly used and regularly prepared for
use in the proceedings......" The last sentence in the above quotation is
based on the decision in 1905 AC 480. In Salmond on Torts, fifteenth
Edition, page 208, it is stated as follows:-- "Judicial privilege. The
authorities establish beyond all question this : that neither party, witness,
counsel, jury, nor Judge can be put to answer civilly or criminally for words
spoken in office; that no action of libel or slander lies, whether against
Judges, counsel, witnesses, or parties, for words written or spoken in the
course of any proceeding before any court recognised by law, and this
though the words written or spoken maliciously without any justification
or excuse, and from personal ill-will and anger against the person
defamed. This absolute privilege has been conceded on the grounds of
public policy to ensure freedom of speech where it is essential that
freedom of speech should exist, and with the knowledge that courts of
justice are presided over by those who from their high character are not
likely to abuse the privilege, and who have the power and ought to have
the will to check any abuse of it by those who appear before them. The
privilege extends to all courts, superior and inferior, civil and military. The
privilege extends not merely to Judges but witnesses, parties, and
advocates. It includes not merely statements made by a witness in court
but also statements made by him to a party, or to the party's solicitor, in
the course of preparation for trial. For it would not be of much use to grant
absolute privilege to what is said in court, if & plaintiff could say: 'I cannot
sue you for what you said in the witness-box, but I am going to sue you for
what you told your solicitor you were going to say in it.'" Here also reliance
is placed on 1905 AC 480.
5. In AIR 1926 Mad 521--
(Sanjivi Reddy v. Koneri Reddi)
the defendant presented a petition to the Deputy Magistrate praying that
the plaintiffs and some others should be bound over under Section 107 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate sent the petition to the
Police for enquiry and report. The police reported after enquiry that there
was no foundation for the allegations in the petition. The Magistrate
thereafter dismissed the petition. It was held that the statements made to
the police officer with a view to their being repeated before the Magistrate
were absolutely privileged. It was further held that the petition presented
under Section 107, Cr. P. C. was invested under the common law of
England with absolute privilege which attaches not merely to the actual
proceedings of any tribunal exercising judicial functions but to all
preliminary steps which are in accordance with the recognized and
reasonable procedure of such a tribunal. The decision in 1905 AC 480 was
followed.
In AIR 1941 Mad 26 (Bapa-lal & Co. v. Krishnaswamy Iyer) it was held that
a complaint to a Police Officer being a statement which the complainant is
prepared if called upon to do so, to substantiate upon oath later is
absolutely orivileged following the decision of the Division Bench in AIR
1926 Mad 521 (Sanjivi Reddy v. Koneri Reddi). In AIR 1941 Mad 538
(Vattappa Kone v. Muthu Karuppan) the allegations made by the
defendants in their statement to the village Magistrate were held to be
absolutely privileged following the decision in AIR 1926 Mad 521. In AIR
1939 Cal 477 (Madhab Chandra v. Nirod Chandra) certain defamatory
statements were made by the defendants against the plaintiff in certain
reports to the police. The decision in 1905 AC 480 was followed. The
observation by Lord Halsbury to the effect that "the overwhelming
consideration that a witness must be protected for' a preliminary
statement or he has no protection at all" was referred to. The contention
that witnesses and parties stand on a different footing was rejected, and it
was observed: "It may be said however that when a party comes to depose
on oath there can be no distinction with regard to his liability to answer
questions as between him and any other witness, and the same must be
said with regard to statement preparatory to giving evidence on oath." It
was further observed that in a sense the statements made to the police
appear to be in this respect on a stronger ground than the statements
made to the solicitor as reported in the English case 1905 AC 480 and it
was observed as follows:-- "For statements made to a solicitor may or may
not be followed up by judicial proceeding, the matter being at the option
of the party consulting such solicitor, in which case the statements would
slumber in the office of the solicitor, as Lord Halsbury said. But the party
lodging information before the police has no option and the police are
empowered to So on with the matter and investigate, leading to other
results." The decision in AIR 1926 Mad 521 (Sanjivi Reddi v. Koneri Reddy
was followed. In (Lachhman v. Pyarchand) the defendants made a report
to the Station House Officer of the police station. In a suit filed by the
plaintiff, against whom defamatory statements had been made in the said
report, it was held that the statements were absolutely privileged. The
decisions in AIR 1941 Mad 538 and AIR 1939 Cal 477 were followed, and
the decision of Blagden J. in ILR (1943) 1 Cal 250 (Mayr v. Rivaz) was
dissented from.
6. Mr. Ganapathi Bhat relied on the decisions in Gang v. Basayya, AIR
1943 Bom 167; Maroti 'sada-shiv v. Godubai Narayana Rao, , and Mayr v.
Rivaz, ILR (1943) 1 Cal 250 in support of his contention that the report to
the police officer filed by the defendant is not covered by absolute
privilege, but that the defendant could only claim a qualified privilege In
AIR 1943 Bom 167 a Mahalkari holding a preliminary enquiry relating to
the conduct of a police patil, on the directions of the Collector in order to
report to the Collector, recorded the statements of the defendants. It was
held that the Mahalkari was not acting in a judicial capacity nor was
exercising the attributes of a Court and that the evidence given before the
Mahalkari in such an enquiry is not absolutely privileged. In it was held
that the defamatory statement made before the police officer in the
course of investigation carried on under the Criminal Procedure Code
cannot be regarded as absolutely privileged but that only a qualified
privilege attaches to them. The learned single Judge who decided the case
observed that the Police Officer who recorded the statement cannot be
stated to have been acting in a judicial capacity or exercising the attributes
of a Court and that the statements were not absolutely privileged. The
decision in ILR (1943) 1 Cal 250 was followed and the decisions in AIR 1926
Mad 521 and AIR 1941 Mad 26 were dissented from since the learned
Single Judge felt that he was bound by the decision of the Division Bench--
AIR 1943 Bom 167. In ILR (1943) 1 Cal 250, the defendant wrote a letter to
the Commissioner of Police containing passages admittedly defamatory to
the plaintiff. The learned Single Judge Blagden J. considered the decision of
a Division Bench of the same court in AIR 1939 Cal 477 but did not follow
the same. The decision in AIR 1941 Mad 26 was also dissented from. It was
held that the defendant was not protected by absolute privilege. The
learned Judge considered two illustrations to show why a complaint to a
Police Officer cannot come under the principle in 1905 AC 480 and should
not be considered as absolutely privileged. The first is a case of the Editor
of a newspaper who publishes a statement that AB is a murderer and
states therein that he would be prepared later to substantiate the
statement upon oath in a judicial proceeding which may be taken by AB. In
such a case, according to the learned Judge, if AB takes proceedings
against the editor, he can plead absolute privilege if the aforesaid principle
applies. The other illustration referred to by the learned Judge is that in
case a report to the police is made which culminates in a prosecution and
the accused is acquitted, it is open to the person charged to sue the
complaint for malicious prosecution and in order to succeed in the suit, the
plaintiff would have to prove malice; but if the charge appears to the
police to be groundless and no prosecution follows, the person against
whom the allegations are made in the report to the police would have no
civil remedy at all; if those allegations are absolutely privileged; and it
would appear odd that a person who makes baseless allegations in a
complaint to the police is in a safer position than a person whose
allegations to the police may be found to be sufficiently justified to result
in a prosecution though it may prove unsuccessful.
7. The reason why absolute privilege is extended to the statement of a
witness made prior to the commencement of a judicial proceeding is based
on public policy as stated by Lord Halsbury in 1905 AC 480. There is no
reason why the principle stated in the said decision should not be
extended to a party and the absolute privilege confined only to the
statement of a witness under such circumstances. Of the two instances
referred to by Blagden J. in ILR (1943) 1 Cal 250 the first refers to the editor
of a newspaper as stated above. But it is doubtful whether the editor of
the newspaper in such circumstances can claim absolute privilege on the
basis of the principle laid down in 1905 AC 480. With regard to the second
illustration referred to by Blagden J., if the complaint to the police results
in an unsuccessful prosecution then the person defamed can only claim
damages for malicious prosecution and not for defamation. In case the
complaint to the police does not result in a prosecution, then also the
persons defamed have no remedy in respect of defamatory statements
made in such a complaint to the police. But if a false complaint is made to
the police, the person who makes such a false complaint would be
punishable either under Section 182 or Section 211 of the Indian Penal
Code. It cannot therefore be said that a person against whom false charges
are made in a complaint to the police, even if no further action is taken by
the police authorities on such complaint, goes scot-free. I would,
therefore, prefer to follow the earlier view of the Division Bench of the
same High Court in AIR 1939 Cal 477 and the other decisions referred to
above which take the view that a complaint to a police officer is absolutely
privileged.
8. It must therefore be held that the statements made by the defendant in
his complaint to the police officer are absolutely privileged'. This appeal is
accordingly dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs in this appeal.
9. Appeal dismissed. Satendra Kumar Gupta vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on
22/2/2008 JUDGMENT A.K. Roopanwal, J. 1. This criminal revision is
directed against the order dated 27.9.06 passed by the Family Court,
Gorakhpur in criminal case No. 340/03, Smt. Kanchan Gupta v. Satendra
Kumar Gupta, under Section 125, Cr.P.C. whereby the court allowed the
application and granted maintenance of Rs. 3,500/- p.m. to O.P. No. 2 and
Rs. 3,500/- p.m. for her son from the date of the petition under Section
125, Cr.P.C.
2. It appears from the record that an application under Section 13, Hindu
Marriage Act was moved by the revisionist against O.P. No. 2 before the
Family Court, Gorakhpur and this was registered as case No. 54/03. The
wife Smt. Kanchan Gupta also filed an application under Section 125,
Cr.P.C. against the revisionist Satendra Kumar Gupta for her maintenance
and for the maintenance of her son and this case was registered as case
No. 340/03.
3. The case of the revisionist was that O.P. No. 2 had neglected him and is
not taking his care and therefore, their marriage be desolved by a decree
of divorce. The Case of O.P. No. 2 was that the husband had neglected her
and her son and therefore, the divorce suit filed by the husband was liable
to be dismissed and she and her son are entitled to maintenance. Both the
parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their cases. The
trial court framed as many as six issues for decision of the case. After
perusal of the evidence the trial court dismissed the application for divorce
which is not the subject matter of this revision as the only prayer has been
made before this Court is about the maintenance under Section 125,
Cr.P.C. filed by the wife. The application for maintenance was allowed in
the manner stated above which gave rise to this revision.
4. I have heard Mr. Dilip Gupta, learned Counsel for the revisionist, Mr.
K.K. Mishra for O.P. No. 2 and perused the record.
5. Mr. Gupta argued that the trial court has wrongly assessed the income
of the revisionist and has also wrongly fixed the quantum of maintenance,
therefore, findings in this regard are liable to be quashed. In this regard he
argued that the trial court based his findings on the basis of that record
which was subsequently found to be not reliable by the court itself and
therefore, the above findings should be quashed and matter be remanded
back to the court for afresh decision. The above argument was refuted by
the other side.
6. A look at the impugned judgment would reveal that the findings
regarding the income and the quantum of maintenance have been
recorded by the trial court on the basis of the record of the income tax
assessments for certain years relied upon by the wife. The husband
challenged the truthfulness of these records by moving an application
under Section 340, Cr.P.C. even during the continuance of the proceedings
but the trial court decided the application under Section 125, Cr.P.C.
without deciding the application under Section 340, Cr.P.C. However, after
the decision of the application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. on 27.9.06 the
same court decided the application under Section 340, Cr.P.C. vide order
dated 26.2.07. In the last paragraph of this order it was observed by the
court that the judgment in case No. 340/03 has been obtained by the wife
on the basis of forged evidence. The application under Section 340, Cr.P.C.
was allowed by the court and criminal proceedings were instituted against
the wife and others. Learned Counsel for the revisionist says that in view
of the decision on the application under Section 340, Cr.P.C. judgment
passed in the proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed to
stand and therefore, this should be set aside.
7. Learned Counsel for O.P. No. 2 argued that the procedure adopted by
the trial court for the decision of the application under Section 340, Cr.P.C.
is not a correct procedure and therefore, the argument advanced by the
learned Counsel for the revisionist should not be accepted.
8. In my opinion, it cannot be a valid consideration for deciding the
controversy between the parties as to whether the procedure in initiating
the proceedings under Section 340, Cr.P.C. adopted by the trial court was
correct or wrong. The only consideration for testing the propriety of the
judgment under Section 125, Cr.P.C. is as to whether the decision on the
application under Section 340, Cr.P.C. can be a valid consideration or not
for deciding the application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. and in that regard it
can safely be said that once findings recorded on the application under
Section 340, Cr.P.C. have not been set aside by any competent court of
law, hence, these findings are binding upon the parties and in view of
these findings this can very well be said that the evidence on the basis of
which the wife got judgment in the proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C.
cannot be said to be a good judgment as this judgment is based on that
evidence which has been held to be forged by that very court which had
decided the proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C.
9. In view of the above, I am in agreement with the argument advanced by
the learned Counsel for the revisionist that the judgment and order passed
in the proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C. registered as case No. 340/03
are liable to be quashed and the matter is liable to be remanded back for
afresh decision.
10. Accordingly, revision is allowed. Judgment and order dated 27.9.06 is
set aside so far as it relates to the proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C.
registered at case No. 340/03. The matter is remanded back to the trial
court for afresh decision on the basis of the evidence on record. The
parties may be allowed to lead fresh evidence, if they so like.
Src : http://indiankanoon.org/doc/157028/
few basic questions to clarify my confusion............ over to some basics !!!
where I always lacked. :
( In an affidavit.......... The verification/declaration section at the
end...........wherein it says that "above statements are true to my belief etc
etc" where deponent says "I, the undersigned,....... occ: Presently
Unemployed, currently residing at.............etc etc" as well as the 'oath'
section in th beginning, after the heading "affidavit" ............where in it
says that "I the undersigned,....... occ: Unemployed, currently residing
at............states on solemn affirmation that ....." These are the locations
where that female has lied on oath.....Also in the petition (supporting
sworn affidavit) in a few paras she mentioned that "it is now very difficult
for her to get the job" Do "sworn affidavits" pleading, be considered as "a
part of evidence" or "stage of evidence"? I believe, whole affidavit is a
statement on oath, whether 'core/central part' or 'the beginning/Ending
declaration part' of the Affidavit, is an information on oath. because
anything and everything, from first word to last word, is taken as
information. Wrong Age may be taken as typing mistake unless "crucial" in
the lights of facts (e.g. legal age to marry ) Job/Occupation...if the divorce
suit has facts and allegations levelled in connection to salary etc...and int.
maint is asked in main petition also.......Is it liable to treated as "typing
mistake" and not as a lie on oath!!! Can Wife plead in court that
.................... it was her ld. legal councel who made the mistake by typing
wrongly !!! Not she!!! This is horrifying.......it is happened in the past
also.......... Please comment.............. Was such act ever condoned by any
hon court as a mere typing mistake and not as an offence of 'lying on
oath'...when the suit is almost midway? .............In this court
suit,................. there had been numorous arguments in front of hon court,
between them where the wife's stand was as if she was unemployed. It is
true that.................Before the order was passed on sec 24, she did admit
about her employment and did file the Employment. Letter also....But The
husband wants to use this in connection to the impending divorce petition
hearing for his addvantage as a first priority...........and not for wife's App
on sec 24 (as it is already ordered and App on Sec24 is disposed off) ... My
opinion was that luckily he was let off with a 4 digit int. maint order and it
was ok, in my views.....but he should concentrate on divorce plea hearing
to get it in his favour...and save/reduce alimony .....but he is hell bent on
sec 24 also ...on the merits that "she is employed and needs no maint and
her lover shud maintain her credit card bills and not the husband!!". I hope
I am clarifying the whole context... Please advise. Read more at:
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/lying-on-oath-in-HMA-sec-13-
24-Any-Punishment-provisions--28048.asp Declaration and verification
section is part of affirmation. IPC 1860, Section 181. False statement on
oath or affirmation to public servant Hence Wife
I was under the impression that...a wife would have a escape route to
make a plea of typing mistake but unfortunately ...case is watertight.....
This is a case where wives unnecessarily go with overconfidence and are
ready to blame lawyer laterwards