Punjab and Haryana High Court Dismisses Petition for False Evidence in Maintenance Proceedings

In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, dismissed a revision petition filed against an order issued by the Additional Principal Judge (Family Court), Ambala. The order, dated 13^th October 2021, directed an inquiry into an offense of false evidence under Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the petitioner in a maintenance case. The court held that it was expedient in the interest of justice to conduct the inquiry.

The case, Smt. Ritu @ Ridhima & Anr. v. Sandeep Singh Sangwan, involved a marital dispute where the wife had filed a complaint against the husband and his family members under various sections of the IPC. Additionally, she had sought maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC), claiming to have no source of income or property to support herself.

During the proceedings, it came to light that the wife, despite being employed as an Assistant Professor at Chitkara University since July 2017, had deliberately concealed this information from the court. The court noted that she had filed her application for maintenance on 26^th July 2017, omitting any mention of her employment. Moreover, she continued to assert her lack of income during subsequent hearings and even received interim maintenance from the husband.

The court observed that the duty of a party seeking maintenance was to disclose their actual financial status to enable the court to determine an appropriate amount. The deliberate withholding of employment and income details by the wife amounted to false evidence, which undermined the integrity of the court proceedings.

Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, in his judgment, emphasized that making false assertions in court should be strongly discouraged, especially in matrimonial cases where the credibility of the parties is of utmost importance. The court stated that the petitioner’s actions were deliberate and conscious, aimed at securing maintenance by providing false information. Consequently, an inquiry under Section 191 IPC was ordered, as the possibility of conviction was high.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the non-disclosure was unintentional, attributing it to the documents being provided to the counsel before joining her job. However, the court rejected this explanation, highlighting the petitioner’s educational qualifications and the absence of any attempt to inform the court of the change in circumstances during the proceedings.

The judgment serves as a reminder that parties involved in legal proceedings have a duty to uphold the truth and provide accurate information to the court. False assertions not only impede the administration of justice but also compromise the integrity of the judicial system.

The ruling sets a precedent in maintenance cases, reinforcing the importance of full disclosure and honesty during proceedings. It sends a strong message that deliberately providing false evidence will not be tolerated by the courts and may result in further legal consequences.

The judgment in the case of Smt. Ritu @ Ridhima & Anr. v. Sandeep Singh Sangwan acts as a significant reminder of the court’s commitment to upholding truth and integrity in legal proceedings, while safeguarding the interests of justice.

Decided on: 15.03.2022

Smt. Ritu @ Ridhima & Anr. vs Sandeep Singh Sangwan