The main legal point established in the judgment is that providing false evidence, especially in family disputes, can lead to the initiation of prosecution for perjury under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Sonia Gokani, J.

Leave to amend to join the husband as respondent No. 2 is permitted. To be carried out forthwith.

2. At the outset, it is to be mentioned that in this petition, challenge is made to the order dated 6.9.2016 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court below Exh.88 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.346 of 2013, attempts were made by the Court to see that the parties can reach to any kind of settlement. However, as the same could not be worked out, both the sides have been heard extensively. The petitioner is the wife, who is married to respondent No.2.

3. The petitioner is married to respondent No.2 on 20.11.2008 and a son is begotten out of the said wedlock on 21.12.2010. It is the say of the petitioner that after the birth of the son, the husband got shifted at Jetpur and started residing in a rented premise. He had once again started residing with joint family at Rajkot. The petitioner urged that she was deserted in August, 2012 and thereafter she made an application under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code by preferring Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.346 of 2013 for herself and her son.

4. The trial Court, on an application Exh.88 under sections 195 and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure preferred by respondent No.2 on 13.5.2016, recorded the evidence on both the sides and directed the Registrar of Family Court to file an application before the Pradyuman Nagar police station under sections 191,192 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. After staying the said order for a period of 30 days, the dissatisfied wife is before this Court with various averments and following reliefs:

"(10) The petitioner on the aforesaid premises, prays before Your Lordships that:

(A) Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the Order impugned Dt.6/09/2016 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Rajkot below Ex88 in Cri. M.A. No. 346 of 2013.

(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of present application, Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to stay the implementation, execution and compliance of the Order Dt. 6/09/2016 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Rajkot below Exh88 in Cri. M.A. No. 346 of 2013.

(C) Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to pass such other and further relief as may be deemed just and proper in favour of the petitioners, in the interest of justice."

6. Learned advocate Chandrani appearing for the petitioner has urged that even if there is any perjury, the petitioner need not be prosecuted. He has urged that Court below was in error in appreciating the evidence, specifically the income tax return to conclude that the petitioner had suppressed her true income. It is not the case of the petitioner that she was serving and was drawing the salary. Her income tax returns have been managed by her father and it is not unusual for family members to have the income tax returns from the business of family. It is further his say that the lady is a graduate. However, she would not know about any return being filed by the father nor would she be aware of the income of the family members and of hers in absence of any work that she was performing. It is not the case of the other side that she was serving and getting the salary from the account of Kirit Traders owned by her father.

7. He further has urged that the order passed by the learned Judge is contrary to the provision of sections 195 and 340 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, also the same deserves to be quashed.

8. Learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2 has urged that it is very rare that the Court would go out of the way to hold that perjury has been committed and, in the instant case, it is quite obvious from the record that she had not revealed the fact that she is given permanent alimony of the sum of Rs. 4,00,000/so also all her income is shown under the Income-Tax Act.

9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 has urged this Court not to interfere. According to him, the Court has