Wives Often Inflate Husbands' Income in Maintenance Battles—But No Perjury Slam: Allahabad HC

In a pragmatic ruling that tempers accusations of deceit in family disputes, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed an appeal by a husband seeking perjury charges against his wife for allegedly exaggerating his earnings in a maintenance claim. Justice Raj Beer Singh upheld the family court's rejection of the husband's application under Section 340 CrPC (now Section 379 BNSS), stressing that such claims don't automatically invite criminal scrutiny.

From Maintenance Plea to Perjury Push: The Family Feud Unfolds

Shiva Kant Dubey, an advocate and the appellant-husband, is locked in a Section 125 CrPC maintenance battle with his wife, Smt. Shikha Dubey (Pandey), filed as Case No. 201 of 2018 before the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.4 in Prayagraj. In her affidavit, the wife pegged her husband's monthly income at Rs. 80,000—or Rs. 1,25,000 at another point—while he insists it's just Rs. 11,000. Dubey filed a Criminal Misc. Application No. 71 of 2025 under Section 379 BNSS (equivalent to Section 340 CrPC), alleging false statements warranting charges under Sections 211, 213, 222, and 232 BNS for perjury-like offenses.

The family court rejected this on October 28, 2025, prompting Dubey's criminal appeal (No. 72 of 2026) under Section 380 BNSS. The High Court heard arguments from Dubey's counsel, the wife's advocate Sanjiv Kumar Pandey, and the AGA for the State of U.P., disposing of it at the admission stage on March 13, 2026.

Husband's Outrage vs. Wife's Defense: Clashing Claims in Court

Dubey's side hammered the inconsistencies in the wife's affidavit as deliberate lies, arguing they tainted court proceedings and met the threshold for perjury prosecution. "The impugned order is against facts and law," his counsel urged, demanding the order be set aside.

The wife's counsel countered fiercely: Dubey, a seasoned advocate, was hiding agricultural and rental income. Exaggerations aside, his true earnings would be adjudicated via evidence in the ongoing maintenance case. Labeling the move as "delaying tactics to avoid payment of interim maintenance," they insisted no prima facie perjury existed, and the family court's order was sound.

Decoding Perjury Safeguards: Why Courts Won't Jump the Gun

Justice Singh delved into Section 340 CrPC's core, which guards against frivolous prosecutions for offenses under Section 195(1)(b) CrPC—like false evidence in affidavits. Drawing from Supreme Court wisdom in Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam (AIR 1971 SC 1367), the bench reiterated: perjury sanctions demand "deliberate and conscious" falsehoods where conviction is "reasonably probable," not mere inaccuracies.

Echoing Dr. S.P. Kohli v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana (AIR 1978 SC 1753), the court stressed a "prima facie case of deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance." Punjab & Haryana HC's Jaswinder Singh v. Smt. Paramjit Kaur (MANU/PH/0330/1985) warned against courts fueling "personal vendetta," underscoring Section 340's aim to protect justice administration, not settle scores.

Crucially, the ruling acknowledges real-world dynamics: "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."

With the maintenance case pending, income disputes belong to evidence adjudication—not premature perjury probes.

Court's Punchy Pronouncements: Quotes That Cut Through

  • On everyday family court realities : "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."

  • Guarding against misuse : "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."

  • Expediency test : "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... having regard to the effect or impact, such commission of offence has upon administration of justice."

Appeal Tossed: Broader Ripples for Matrimonial Litigation

"The appeal lacks merit and thus liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed."

This decision reinforces restraint in perjury bids during live maintenance disputes, potentially curbing tactical delays. For future cases, it signals: exaggeration ≠ automatic criminality. Parties must prove deliberate deceit impacting justice, letting family courts first sift evidence on income—streamlining, not derailing, maintenance quests.