Husband challenged the Family Court's refusal to initiate criminal proceedings against his wife for a false affidavit filed in a Section 125(3) maintenance recovery application. The High Court found the wife's application was bonafide and withdrawn; it declined interference and dismissed both appeals at motion stage.
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.
1
2025:CGHC:6499-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
FA(MAT) No. 34 of 2025
1 - Pravin Kumar Jain S/o Late Prakashchand Jain Aged About 49 Years R/o House No. 34, Vardhaman Nagar, Behind Jain Temple, New Rajendra Nagar, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.).
--- Appellant (s)
versus
1 - Anjali Jain W/o Pravin Kumar Jain Aged About 47 Years R/o MGI-16, Indrawati Colony, Raipur, Tahsil And Dist. Raipur (C.G.). --- (Deponent On Behalf Of Applicant Before The Family Court)
2 - Ku. Dibyansha Jain Aged About 16 Years Through Anjali Jain (Natural Guardian), R/o MGI-16, Indrawati Colony, Raipur, Tahsil And Dist. Raipur (C.G.). --- (Applicant Through Natural Guardian Anjali Jain).
--- Respondent(s)
&
FA(MAT) No. 35 of 2025
1 - Pravin Kumar Jain S/o Late Prakashchand Jain Aged About 49 Years R/o House No. 34, Vardhaman Nagar, Behind Jain Temple, New Rajendra Nagar, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
2
1 - Anjali Jain W/o Pravin Kumar Jain Aged About 47 Years R/o M.G.I. 16, Indrawati Colony, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Ku. Divyansha Jain Aged About 16 Years Through Anjali Jain ( Natural Guardian ), R/o M.G.I. 16, Indrawati Colony, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
For Appellant (s) : Shri Gary Mukhopadhyaya, Advocate
DB: Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput})
Order on Board
05/02/2025
As both the aforesaid appeals have been filed by the same party, they are being decided by this common order.
3
Divyansha Jain. It is submitted that the appellant was paying the maintenance amount regularly but the respondent / wife filed an application on behalf of the minor daughter Divyansha Jain under Section 125 (3) of CrPC before the Family Court on 08/04/2024 alleging that the appellant had not paid maintenance during the period of Covid 19 and he is liable to pay Rs.80,500/- and in another MCC, she filed application under Section 125 (3) of the CrPC before the Family Court on 08/04/2024 alleging that the appellant had not paid the maintenance amount from January, 2023 to February, 2024 amounting to Rs.65,000/-. Learned Family Court registered both the applications as MCC No.491/24 and MCC No.492/24 and in support of her application, she also filed affidavit Annexure A/11. The appellant / husband filed an application under Section 195 and 340 of CrPC on the ground that the respondent / wife has deliberately filed false affidavit before the trial Court. Therefore criminal proceedings may be initiated against the respondent / wife but vide impugned order dated 12/09/2024, learned trial Court rejected the application of the appellant in both the cases and as the respondent / wife did not press her application, therefore, both the applications were dismissed as withdrawn on the same day. Hence, this appeal has been filed by the appellant/ husband.
4
Section 125 (3) of the CrPC supported with the affidavit just to harass the appellant. It is also submitted that the learned Family Court ought to have appreciated that the action of respondent No.1 is nothing but abuse of the process of law. The excuse given by respondent No.1 in her reply is unacceptable and in as much as respondent No.1 being a natural guardian of daughter and handling the bank account of Ku. Divyansha Jain could not have been ignorant of the transaction made in the bank account. Therefore, the impugned orders in both the cases are liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
In Re: Suo Motu proceedings against R.Karuppan, Advocate, (2001) 5 SCC 289.
**vukosnd dh vksj ls izLrqr vkosnu ij fopkj fd;kA vukosnd us ftu rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij vukosfndk ds fo#) nkf.Md dk;Zokgh fd, tkus dk fuosnu fd;k x;k gS mDr rF;ksa ds laca/k esa vkosfndk us vius tokc esa dgk gS fd tkudkjh ds vHkko esa ewy vkosnu varxZr /kkjk 125(3) naizla esa vfHkdfFkr fd;k tkuk O;Dr fd;k gSA vkosfndk us ;g Hkh dgk gS fd muds }kjk vkosnu esa fdlh Hkh rF;ksa ds laca/k esa >wBk dFku ugha fd;k x;k gS cfYd tkudkjh ds vHkko e s a ln~Hkkfod :i lsa vkosnu esa dFku fd;k x;k gSA bl izdkj vkosfndk dh vksj ls izLrqr tokc esa mYysf[kr rF;ksa ls ;g
Li"V gksrk gS fd vkosfndk us vius ewy vkosnu varxZr /kkjk 125(3) naizla esa Hkj.k&iks"k.k dh jkf’k ds laca/k esa ln~Hkkfod :i ls tkudkjh ds vHkko esa dFku fd;k tkuk izdV gksrk gSA ,slh n’kk esa vkosfndk ds fo#) /kkjk 191]
5
209] 210] 211 Hkknfo lgifBr /kkjk 192] 196] 199 ,oa 200 Hkknfo ds rgr nkf.Md dk;Zokgh fd, tkus dh vko’;drk izrhr ugha gks jgk gSA vr% vukosnd dh vksj ls izLrqr vkosnu varxZr /kkjk 195] 340 naizla fnukad 2504-2024 fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA**
“Section 195 of CrPC - Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence - (1) No Court shall take cognizance—
(a)(i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or
(ii) of any abetment of, attempt to commit, such offence, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, such offence, Except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;
(b)(i) of any offence punishable under any of the following section of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or
(ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii), except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such
6
officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.
340. Procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195.
(1) When upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary, -
(a) record a finding to that effect;
(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;
(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;
(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such magistrate; and
(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate.
(2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a complaint under sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 195.
(3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed, -
(a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint;
(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court[or by such officer of the Court as the Court may authorise in writing in this behalf.] [ Substituted by Act 2 of 2006, Section 6, for Cl. (b)
7
(w.e.f. 16-4-2006). Prior to its substitution, Cl (b) read as under :- [(b) in by other case, by the presiding officer of the Court].]
(4) In this section, "Court" has the same meaning as in Section 195.”
Sd/Sd/(Rajani Dubey) (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE JUDGE
Deepti
Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.02.07 16:56:40 +0530
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Family Court erred in rejecting the husband's application under Sections 195 and 340 CrPC for initiating perjury proceedings against the wife for filing an allegedly false affidavit under
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
In Re: Suo Motu proceedings against R.Karuppan, AdvocateRelied on
(2001) 5 SCC 289 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Pravin Kumar Jain
Anjali Jain
Ku. Dibyansha Jain
Rajani Dubey
Sachin Singh Rajput
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
