The court's mandate requires a high threshold for initiating perjury proceedings, demanding evidence of deliberate falsehood rather than mere inaccuracies.

JUDGMENT :

RENU BHATNAGAR, J.

CM APPL. 19032/2025 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

MAT. APP.(F.C.)127/2025 AND CM APPLs. 19031/2025 & 19033/2025

2. This is an appeal challenging the Order dated 17.08.2024 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’) passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, North District, Rohini, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Family Court’), in HMA No. 598/2015 (58950/2016) titled Mahender Sharma v. Suman Sharma , whereby the application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 397 of the B.N.S.S., 2023) filed by the appellant was dismissed by the learned Family Court holding that the same is devoid of merits and no case for holding of inquiry under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. is made out.

3. In brief, the facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the appellant and the respondent got married on 25.04.2002 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Customs, and one male child was born from their wedlock on 06.06.2003.

4. The present case is the third divorce petition filed by the respondent against the appellant, as the earlier divorce petitions were either settled/withdrawn or dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

5. In the present divorce petition, the appellant had filed an application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. against the respondent herein on the grounds that the respondent has committed perjury by stating different addresses at different places, by filing a false income affidavit stating to earn Rs. 15,400/- per month and that his Income-Tax is Nil, which is against the ITO record showing filing of ITR by him up till AY 2011-12. It is further stated that the respondent, in his income affidavit, stated that he is employed with Skybrage Freight Pvt. Ltd. since 01.06.2015. The webpage of the company of 2013 states that he was employed as a Manager. The appellant claimed that the respondent has put up a false claim of earning only Rs. 15,400/- as a person on a managerial post cannot be employed on such a meagre salary. He has also falsely shown his income from other sources as Nil, because he has sold his matrimonial house Kh. No. 426, near Balaji Mandir, Laxmi Vihar to his sister.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on this appeal. After hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and going through the impugned order, we do not find any merit in the same.

7. As is reflected from the impugned order, the learned Family Court had dismissed the application of the appellant after considering the explanations tendered by the respondent to the alleged grounds of perjury. The learned Family Court found all the explanations tendered by the respondent as plausible and did not find any case for holding the inquiry. We quote from the impugned order as under:

"6. In the backdrop of the above observations, I will proceed to decide the present application. The first alleged perjury is regarding the different addresses mentioned by the petitioner in his income affidavit and in other proceedings. The petitioner has tendered a plausible and acceptable explanation that the address mentioned in his income affidavit was his current address at that time which was rented accommodation. In my opinion, it will neither be expedient nor in the interest of justice to hold an enquiry into this alleged perjury. So far as the mentioning of his Income-tax as “Nil” in his income affidavit, the income tax authorities have informed the respondent herself that the petitioners have filed ITRs only upto AY 2011-12. Therefore, no false affirm