Court Rules Wife Cannot Be Prosecuted for Exaggerating Husband’s Income in Maintenance Cases

In a significant ruling that clarifies the threshold for perjury charges in family disputes, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed a criminal appeal from a husband seeking prosecution of his wife for allegedly misrepresenting his income during maintenance proceedings.

Justice Raj Beer Singh, who presided over the case, emphasized that exaggeration of a spouse’s income in maintenance cases does not automatically warrant criminal action for perjury.

“It is common knowledge that in such proceedings like under Section 125 CrPC, generally claimant/wife exaggerates the income of her husband in order to claim maintenance but it does not mean that such a statement on the part of wife warrants action under Section 340 CrPC,” Justice Singh stated in his order.

The case stemmed from a dispute at the family court in Prayagraj, where the husband had filed an application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) seeking criminal proceedings against his wife. He alleged that she had deliberately misrepresented his monthly income in her affidavit during maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC.

According to the husband’s allegations, his wife claimed in different instances that he earned ₹80,000 and ₹1,25,000 per month, while he maintained his actual income was only ₹11,000 monthly. The family court had rejected his application, prompting the appeal to the High Court.

The wife’s defense highlighted that her husband, who works as an advocate, had multiple income sources including agriculture and rental properties that he allegedly concealed. Her counsel argued that the determination of income is an evidentiary matter for the family court to decide, and that the husband was attempting to delay maintenance proceedings through such applications.

In its ruling, the High Court examined the purpose and scope of perjury provisions, noting that they serve as safeguards against frivolous prosecutions and should only be invoked when “expedient in the interest of justice.” The court referenced landmark Supreme Court judgments in Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam (1971) and Jaswinder Singh v. Smt. Paramjit Kaur (1985), which established that perjury prosecutions should be limited to cases where falsehoods appear deliberate and conscious, with strong prospects of conviction.

The court observed that maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC frequently involve disputed income claims that must be resolved through proper evidence and adjudication. Justice Singh pointed out that since the underlying maintenance case remained pending and the husband’s actual income had yet to be determined by the family court, initiating perjury proceedings would be premature.

Legal experts note that this ruling reinforces the judiciary’s cautious approach to perjury allegations in family disputes, where emotional factors often lead to exaggerated claims from both parties. Family law practitioners have long observed that income disputes represent one of the most contentious aspects of maintenance cases, with significant disparities often appearing in the figures presented by opposing spouses.

The court also delivered a broader message about the potential misuse of perjury proceedings, warning that Section 340 CrPC should not become “a tool for settling personal disputes” or “an instrument in the hands of litigants seeking to pursue private vendetta.”

The ruling in Shiva Kant Dubey vs. State of U.P. and Another, delivered on March 13, 2026, serves as an important precedent for family courts handling similar applications, establishing that disputed financial claims alone do not justify criminal prosecution for perjury without substantial evidence of deliberate falsehood and clear judicial necessity.