JUDGMENT :

N. SATISH KUMAR, J.

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 55 of the Indian Divorce Act against the fair and decretal order made in I.A.No. 4 of 2021 in I.D.O.P.No. 150 of 2019, dated 25.08.2022, on the file of the Principal District Court at Tirunelveli.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli rejecting the application filed by the appellant for initiating the proceedings under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for the alleged perjury.

2. The main ground on which the said application filed is that when the appellant has filed I.D.O.P for divorce before the Family Court, Thanjavur in I.D.O.P.No. 101 of 2007, the respondent took a stand that she lived with her husband only in Vellur and Thoothukudi. Based on the above stand, the appellant filed I.D.O.P for divorce before the Court of Vellore and subsequently, the above said case has been transferred to the file of Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli and numbered as I.D.O.P.No. 150 of 2019. In the meanwhile, the respondent also filed an application under the Domestic Violence Act before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Tirunelveli in D.V.C.NO. 7 of 2017 and subsequently, it appears that the said proceedings was also transferred to the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli. When these matters are pending, an application is filed by the appellant before the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli, for inititiation of proceedings for the alleged perjury under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. The main ground in this application is that the respondent has taken a stand that except vellore and Thoothukudi, she has not resided in any other place with her husband, whereas, in the pleadings filed before the Family Court, Vellore, she had taken a different stand that she lived with her husband apart from vellore and Thoothukudi, also in Tirunelveli. Therefore, the Petition has been filed. The learned Principal District Judge, after analysing the various other factors, considering the statements of the parties given before the various other forums, one before the Judicial Magistrate Court and Family Court, Thanjavur and the Petition filed before the Family Court, Vellore, the Principal District Judge has come to the conclusion that those statements are inconsistent with each other. Mere inconsistent stand taken by the parties will not be sufficient to initiate proceedings and accordingly rejected the application. Chellenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed.

3. Mr.Rajkumar Paul, learned counsel appearing for the appellant mainly contended that the appellant having taken a stand that she never lived in Tirunelveli, other than Vellore and Thoothukudi, in the earlier proceedings, have filed DVC proceedings before Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli stated therein as if she has lived with her husband in Tirunelveli. That apart, for the first time, in Family Court, Vellore, a stand has been taken as if she has lived in Tirunelveli apart from Vellore and Thoothukudi. Hence his contention that when she has given one-one kind of statement before one Court and making a different statement before another Court will clearly attract the case of perjury. To show a different stand taken by the appellant, she has relied upon the evidence given by the respondent before the Family Court, Thanjavur and also before the Judicial Magistrate Court at Tirunelveli. Hence this contention is a clear case of perjury and therefore, the order of the trial judge needs to be set aside.

4. Heard Mr.Rajkumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.K.Althaf Sheriff, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

5. I have perused the entire order and various proceedings. The main ground on which the action sought to be initiated under Section 340 of Cr.P.C is that the respondent/wife has given evidence in one of the proceedings between the parties th