Husband's appeal against dismissal of his application to prosecute his wife for alleged perjury in a maintenance claim. The High Court held that a successful rebuttal of evidence does not amount to perjury, no forged document was filed, and dismissed the appeal summarily.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:113918
Court No. - 81
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5086 of 2025
Appellant :- Mohd Fazil Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Mohd. Asim Zulfiquar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J.
Appellant-Mohd. Fazil has filed this appeal under Section 380 Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for setting aside the impugned order dated 18.4.2025 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Kaushambi in Case No. 194 of 2022, titled Mohd. Fazil Vs. Ayesha Jafri, whereby his application under Section 379 read with Section 215 BNS, 2023 alleging perjury being committed by the opposite party no. 2-wife has been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the appellant-husband has argued that opposite party no.2-wife has concealed her source of income while filing a claim for maintenance against the appellant and in this regard, an application was moved by the appellant under Section 379 read with Section 215 B.N.S. for initiating action against the opposite party no.2-wife for perjury, but the trial court has wrongly dismissed the said application vide impugned order dated 18.4.2025. Learned counsel submits that the appellant had moved an application for restitution of conjugal rights and the same was allowed vide order dated 22.12.2022 and the opposite party no.2wife was directed to resume the company of her husband. According to learned counsel, the previous case filed by opposite party no.2-wife for maintenance bearing Case No. 121 of 2016 was dismissed for non prosecution whereas in the present case, she has again claimed maintenance on the ground that she has no source of income.
Learned counsel for the appellant refers to the application (Annexure No.3) to point out that the affidavit filed by the wife in support of her claim is false, who has concealed that she is working as a teacher. Learned counsel submits that during crossexamination, the wife-opposite party no.2 admitted that she was employed as a teacher in a private school and was drawing salary of Rs.1500/- per month. Learned counsel has argued that the material concealment by wife-opposite party no.2 amounts to
perjury, but the trial court has erroneously refused to initiate the action against the opposite party no.2-wife. Learned counsel has referred to the other particulars given in the said application and argued that the trial court has not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case carefully while passing the impugned order, therefore, it warrants interference by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.
After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and considering his submissions, this Court finds that the application for maintenance has been filed by the wife-opposite party no.2 in August, 2022, wherein it is clearly mentioned that her previous application bearing Case No. 121 of 2016 was dismissed for non prosecution, as she was not aware of the date of hearing as 15.4.2022. That apart, in a litigation between rival parties, the respective version is put forth by them and in support of the same, the evidence is also adduced by the parties, and the trial court is required to carefully analyze the evidence of the parties while adjudicating the contentious issues arising from the pleadings of the parties. Many a times, the evidence adduced by a party is rebutted successfully by other party, but this would not strictly amount to perjury, and if, this rule is to be applied so liberally then in every litigation, the successful party would raise an accusation of perjury against the losing side. Concededly, it is not a case where any forged document has been filed by the opposite party no.2-wife, therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the application filed by the appellant has been rightly dismissed. A perusal of the impugned order dated 18.4.2025 would show that the trial court has carefully examined the material on record and has passed a reasoned order. The impugned order dated 18.4.2025 does not suffer from any illegality, therefore, no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.
Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed summarily.
Order Date :- 15.7.2025 P.S.Parihar
Digitally signed by :- POORAN SINGH PARIHAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Family Court rightly dismissed the husband's application under Sections 379/215 BNS alleging the wife committed perjury by concealing her income in a maintenance claim.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mohd Fazil
State of U.P.
Ayesha Jafri
Manoj Bajaj
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
