The Allahabad High Court has observed that it is common knowledge that in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, a wife generally exaggerates the income of her husband in order to claim higher maintenance, but such statements do not by themselves warrant initiation of proceedings for perjury under Section 340 CrPC or Section 379 BNSS against her. A single bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh dismissed the criminal appeal filed by a husband challenging the order dated 28 October 2025 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.4, Prayagraj, whereby his application under Section 340 CrPC / Section 379 BNSS was rejected.

The appellant, Shiva Kant Dubey, who is an advocate, contended that his wife had filed a maintenance case under Section 125 CrPC and in the affidavit filed therein she had falsely mentioned his monthly income as Rs. 80,000 at one place and Rs. 1,25,000 at another place, whereas his actual income is only Rs. 11,000 per month. He submitted that the wife had made deliberate false averments in the affidavit without producing any supporting evidence, and therefore a case under Sections 211, 213, 222 and 232 BNS was made out against her. It was argued that the Family Court had rejected his application in an arbitrary manner.

Opposing the appeal, counsel for the wife submitted that the husband is an advocate having long standing practice and he has concealed his income from agriculture as well as rental income. It was contended that merely because the wife had mentioned a higher income in the affidavit, it was no ground to initiate proceedings under Section 340 CrPC. The actual income of the husband is yet to be determined by the Family Court on the basis of evidence led by the parties, and the husband was adopting delaying tactics to avoid payment of interim maintenance.

The High Court, after considering the rival submissions and perusing the record, referred to the provisions of Section 340 CrPC (now corresponding to Section 379 BNSS) and noted that these provisions are meant to provide a safeguard against frivolous and vexatious prosecutions. The Court observed that action under these sections can be taken only when the court forms an opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into the alleged offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b) CrPC. Relying on the Supreme Court judgments in Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam (AIR 1971 SC 1367) and Dr. S.P. Kohli v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana (AIR 1978 SC 1753), the bench held that prosecution for perjury should be sanctioned only in cases where the falsehood appears to be deliberate and conscious and a conviction is reasonably probable or likely.

The Court further clarified that in every inquiry under Section 340 CrPC / Section 379 BNSS, the court is not bound to make a complaint unless it is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice. This expediency is to be judged not merely by the magnitude of injury suffered by the affected person but by the effect or impact such commission of offence has upon the administration of justice. It was emphasised that courts should never become tools in the hands of the parties to satisfy private vendetta.

Applying the above principles to the facts of the case, the High Court held that the income of the appellant is yet to be decided by the Family Court on the basis of evidence of the parties and the matter is still pending. It observed that in such maintenance proceedings, wives generally exaggerate the income of their husbands, but this by itself does not warrant action under Section 340 CrPC. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Court found no expediency in the interest of justice to initiate proceedings for perjury. No material illegality or perversity could be pointed out in the impugned order passed by the Family Court.

Accordingly, the criminal appeal was dismissed.

Case Title: Shiva Kant Dubey vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 2026
Date of Judgment: 13 March 2026
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Raj Beer Singh

Click HERE for Judgment