"False Assertions Ought To Be Discouraged": PH High Court On Woman's Conduct Of Hiding Job Status, Earning In Maintenance Plea

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently observed that false assertions should be discouraged by parties while they come tot he Court seeking reliefs. The Court observed thus in connection with a case of a woman who hid her job details and her earnings in a maintenance plea filed by her under Section 125 of CrPC.

The bench of Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi observed that the practice of making false assertions in court ought to be discouraged because the dignity and sanctity of the court is undermined by such conduct of a party to a lis.

The case in brief

Essentially, the petitioner-woman Ritu had moved the High Court against the order of the Court of Additional Principal Judge (Family Court), Ambala ordering an inquiry against the petitioner into an offence under Section 191 IPC punishable under Section 193 for concealing her income while seeking maintenance from her husband.

During her deposition before the court, she maintained the same stand of having no income but when she was confronted with the record relating to her job, she admitted that she was working as an Assistant Professor on a monthly salary of Rs.28,000/- per month.

The petitioner took up the job on July 3, 2017 whereas she had moved an application under Section 125 Cr.PC on July 26, 2017 whereing she had stated that she does not have any source of income or property to support herself or her daughter.

Her husband moved the court below arguing that the wife was legally bound to tell the truth but she made a false statement in her testimony, that she was not holding any job which she knew to be false.

Therefore, holding that she had given false evidence in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.PC, the Court below came to the conclusion that it was expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made for having committed an offence under Sections 191 IPC punishable under Section 193 IPC.

Court's observations 

At the outset, the Court opined that a petition under Section 125 Cr.PC is filed by a person who is unable to maintain herself or her children on account of lack of sufficient means and thus, the Court added, it becomes the foremost duty of the party claiming maintenance to disclose to the Court her actual financial status so as to enable the Court to come to a conclusion as to the quantum of maintenance to be paid, if any.

Further, reverting to the facts of the case, the Court noted that the petitioner is working an Assistant Professor and is a highly educated person and still, at no stage of proceedings uptill her cross examination, did she disclose that she was employed including when her application for interim maintenance was decided and Rs.5000/- was awarded to her.

"Assuming that the said fact was missing in her petition under Section 125 Cr.PC, the Court could have been informed during the course of proceedings that there had been change of circumstances regarding her obtaining employment. However, as has already been mentioned above, no such information was furnished and only the cross examination revealed her job and consequent salary. Thus it can safely be said that the possibility of her conviction was high and her actions were certainly deliberate and conscious to obtain maintenance," the Court held as it dismissed the plea moved by the woman-petitioner

Case title - Smt. Ritu @ Ridhima & Anr. v. Sandeep Singh Sangwan

Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 44

Click here To Read/Download Order