Wife Exaggerating Husband's Income In Maintenance Affidavit Is Not Perjury: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Husband's Section 340 Application

"It is common knowledge that in such proceedings like under Section 125 CrPC, generally claimant/wife exaggerate the income of her husband in order to claim maintenance but it does not mean that such a statement on the part of wife warrants action under Section 340 CrPC", Allahabad High Court has dismissed a criminal appeal filed by a husband who sought to prosecute his wife for perjury after she mentioned his income as Rs.80,000 and Rs.1,25,000 per month in her maintenance affidavit, against what he claimed was his actual income of Rs.11,000 per month.

Justice Raj Beer Singh, applying the well-established "expediency test" under Section 340 CrPC, held that exaggeration of a husband's income in maintenance proceedings does not, by itself, constitute deliberate and conscious falsehood warranting a perjury complaint.

Background of the Case

Respondent No.2, the wife, filed a maintenance case under Section 125 CrPC bearing Case No.201 of 2018 against appellant Shiva Kant Dubey before the Family Court, Prayagraj. In those proceedings, she filed an affidavit stating the appellant's income as Rs.80,000 per month — and at another place Rs.1,25,000 per month. The appellant, who appeared in person before the High Court and is himself an advocate, filed an application under Section 379 BNSS/Section 340 CrPC before the Family Court seeking a complaint against his wife under Sections 211, 213, 222, and 232 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging deliberate false statements.

The Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.4, Prayagraj rejected the application vide order dated 28.10.2025. The husband then preferred the present appeal under Section 380 BNSS before the High Court.

Legal Issues

The central question before the Court was whether exaggeration of a spouse's income in a maintenance affidavit constitutes deliberate and conscious perjury warranting action under Section 340 CrPC/Section 379 BNSS, and whether the Family Court erred in rejecting the application.

Court's Observations and Judgment

On the Scope and Object of Section 340 CrPC

The Court set out clearly that Section 340 CrPC is not a weapon of course — it is conditioned by the critical phrase "expedient in the interest of justice." Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Dr. S.P. Kohli v. The High Court Punjab and Haryana, AIR 1978 SC 1753, the Court reiterated 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." The Court emphasized that there must be a prima facie case of deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance, with reasonable foundation for the charge.

The Court further relied on the Supreme Court's landmark observation in Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam, AIR 1971 SC 1367, where it was held that "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."

On the "Expediency" Test and Its Application

The Court clarified that the expediency under Section 340 CrPC is not to be judged by the magnitude of injury suffered by the aggrieved party but by the effect or impact that the commission of the offence has upon the administration of justice. Courts, it was held, cannot become tools at the hands of parties to satisfy private vendetta. Citing Jaswinder Singh v. Smt. Paramjit Kaur, the Court noted the well-settled principle that proceedings under Section 340 CrPC should be initiated "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."

On Wives Exaggerating Income in Maintenance Proceedings

Addressing the facts directly, the Court made a significant observation rooted in the practical reality of matrimonial litigation: "It is common knowledge that in such proceedings like under Section 125 CrPC, generally claimant/wife exaggerate the income of her husband in order to claim maintenance but it does not mean that such a statement on the part of wife warrants action under Section 340 CrPC."

The Court further noted that the income of the appellant was yet to be determined by the Family Court on the basis of evidence of both parties — the maintenance proceedings being still pending. Since the veracity of the wife's statement in her affidavit was itself a contested matter yet to be adjudicated, no finding of deliberate and conscious falsehood could be recorded at this stage. The Court also noticed the respondent's submission that the appellant, an advocate of considerable standing, had concealed agricultural and rental income — a circumstance that further undermined the perjury claim.

Finding no material illegality or perversity in the Family Court's reasoned order rejecting the application, the High Court dismissed the appeal.

Date of Decision: 13.03.2026