While dismissing a man’s appeal against an order of the Family Court, the Allahabad High Court has held that in proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC, generally the claimant/wife exaggerates the income of her husband to claim maintenance, but such a statement of the wife does not warrant action under Section 340 CrPC.

Section 340 provides a safeguard against frivolous and vexatious prosecution.

The High Court was considering an appeal preferred under Section 380 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) against the order of the Family Court whereby the application filed by the appellant husband under Sections 340 of the CrPC & 379 of the BNSS was rejected.

The Single Bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh held, “It is common knowledge that in such proceedings like under Section - 125 Cr.P.C., 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 Cr.P.C.. As stated earlier complaint under Section - 340 Cr.P.C. / 379 BNSS for offence mentioned under Section - 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. has to be made where Court finds such an action expedient in the interest of justice.”

Advocate Shiva Kant Dubey represented the Appellant, while Govt Advocate represented the Respondent.

Arguments

It was the appellant’s case that he is the husband of the second respondent, and his wife had filed a case under Section 125 of the CrPC. In those proceedings, she had mentioned the income of the appellant as Rs 80,000 per month, but she had not filed any evidence to support the alleged income. The appellant husband submitted that his income is Rs 11,000 per month, and the respondent wife had made false averments in the affidavit.

Reasoning

Referring to Section 340 of the CrPC (Section 379 of BNSS), the Bench explained that this provision provides a safeguard against frivolous and vexatious prosecution. For taking action under section 340 Cr.P.C., the Court has to form an opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made for an offence referred to in section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C., which appears to have been committed or in relation to a proceeding in that Court. Reference was made to the judgment in Dr S. P. Kohli V The High Court of Punjab and Haryana (1978) wherein the Apex Court has held 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 Bench explained, “It is thus clear that in every inquiry under section 340 CrPC / 379 BNSS, the court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b), as the section 340 CrPC is conditioned by the words "court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice". In fact such a course has to be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. This expediency will normally be judged by the court by weighing not the magnitude of injury suffered by the person affected by such forgery or forged document, but having regard to the effect or impact, such commission of offence has upon administration of justice.”

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the respondent wife had filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. against the appellant and the husband alleged that in the affidavit, the wife had mentioned his income as Rs. 80,000 per month, but the same was wholly false. On this aspect, the Bench stated, “It may be observed that the income of the appellant is to be decided by the Family Court on the basis of evidence of the parties. The matter is still pending before the Family Court and thus, veracity of the statement made in the affidavit of respondent No.2 is yet to be considered by the Family Court.”

Thus, considering the facts of the matter, the Bench held that it could not be said that there was any expediency in the interest of justice to make any complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C. As per the Bench, the application of the appellant filed under Section 379 BNSS was rejected by a reasoned order, and there was no material illegality or perversity in the same.

Finding the appeal to be devoid of merit, the Bench dismissed the same.

Cause Title: A v. State of U.P. and Another (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:51669)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocate Shiva Kant Dubey

Respondent: Govt. Advocate, Advocate Sanjiv Kumar Pandey

Click here to read/download Order


Allahabad High CourtJustice Raj Beer Singh

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.