The Punjab and Haryana High Court in its recent order has made it clear that an estranged wife, who did not disclose information about her earnings and submitted wrong information of being unemployed, was liable to be proceeded against for furnishing false evidence.
The high court remarked that seemingly harmless contention of being unemployed by a wife to grab maintenance from her husband can lead to her conviction for furnishing false evidence.
Estranged wife filed a revision petition against order dated October 13, 2021, whereby an Additional Principal Judge (Family Court) held it to be expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made against her for false evidence under Section 191 of the IPC.
Punjab & Haryana High Court:
Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi ruled it was foremost duty of the party claiming maintenance to disclose the actual financial status to enable the court to decide upon the quantum of maintenance. The practice of making false assertions in the court ought to be discouraged as dignity and sanctity of the court was undermined by such conduct of a party.
Justice Bedi added a petition under Section 125 of the CrPC for maintenance is filed by a person unable to maintain herself or her children following lack of sufficient means. Referring to the facts of the case in hand, Justice Bedi asserted the petitioner wife joined a private university on July 3, 2017, as an Assistant Professor on a monthly salary of Rs 28,000. Her petition under Section 125 was filed on July 26, 2017.
She did not disclose the information about her job and earnings during the entire litigation, including the time her application for interim maintenance was decided.
Dismissing the plea, Justice Bedi added it could safely be said the possibility of her conviction was high and her actions were certainly deliberate and conscious to obtain maintenance. Justice Bedi asserted,
In my opinion, this explanation is completely fallacious. The petitioner is an Assistant Professor and a highly educated person. At no stage of proceedings up till her cross examination did she disclose that she was employed.
Assuming that the fact was missing in her petition under Section 125, the court could have been informed during the course of proceedings that there had been change of circumstances regarding her obtaining employment.
ALSO READ –
When I Filed For Divorce, My Wife Filed 498A, DV, 125 CrPC As Rebound | Now Demanding Rs 20 Lakh For Final Settlement
ALSO WATCH –
Join our Facebook Group or follow us on social media by clicking on the icons below
Blogging about Equal Rights for Men or writing about Gender Biased Laws is often looked upon as controversial, as many 'perceive' it Anti-Women. Due to this grey area - where we demand Equality in the true sense for all genders - most brands distance themselves from advertising on a portal like ours.
We, therefore, look forward to your support as donors who understand our work and are willing to partner in this endeavour to spread this cause. Do support our work to counter one sided gender biased narratives in the media.
To make an instant donation, click on the "Donate Now" button above. For information regarding donation via Bank Transfer, click here.