New Delhi: Discouraging the routine filing of perjury pleas, especially in matrimonial cases, the Delhi High Court has said litigants cannot be allowed to make a mockery of the judicial process to gratify their feelings of animosity and exact revenge.
Justice Amit Mahajan stated that the tendency of parties fighting matrimonial disputes to seek proceedings under section 340 of Criminal Procedure Code on "surmises" and "suspicion" to harass the other person needs to be discouraged.
Section 340 pertains to the procedure when a party commits perjury by making a false disclosure in court.
The court's observations came on a petition concerning the payment of maintenance by a husband to his estranged wife.
The family court had reduced to Rs 12,000 per month the maintenance of Rs 25,000 awarded to the wife, while also initiating proceedings against her under section 340 after the husband claimed that she filed a false affidavit with respect to her income and assets and therefore should be prosecuted for perjury.
The family court had opined that the wife had certain financial means which were not disclosed before it.
Justice Mahajan, in the judgement passed on September 20, stated that while undoubtedly an appropriate inquiry can be ordered if the wife is found to have indulged in the misconduct, it is not necessary that in every case an inquiry has to be ordered under section 340.
"It is common knowledge and has been observed by this Court in many cases that it is a normal tendency of the parties, especially in matrimonial disputes to not disclose their true income.
"The Courts in such circumstances are permitted to make some guess work and arrive at a figure that a party may reasonably be earning," the court observed.
The judge set aside the show-cause notice issued to the wife for alleged perjury and said prosecution should be initiated only in "glaring cases of falsehood" as it cannot become an "instrument to satisfy the feeling of personal revenge."
"Routine abuse of power under section 340 of the CrPC to harass the other side and settle scores cannot be allowed. Litigants cannot be allowed to make a mockery of the judicial process to gratify their feelings of animosity by exacting revenge against the other side," the court asserted.
"The propensity of parties embroiled in matrimonial disputes seeking proceedings under section 340 on mere surmises and suspicion with a revengeful desire to harass the other side needs to be discouraged," it said.
The court, in its order, however refused to disturb the reduced maintenance amount awarded to the wife by the family court, saying the amount of Rs 12,000 per month was "just and reasonable."
The wife assailed the family court's order because the alleged discrepancies in her statements were either misinterpretations or minor inconsistencies.
It was submitted that she had no intention of misleading the court and the maintenance amount should be revised upward to reflect her current financial needs