High Court: Must disclose financial status, earnings in maintenance matters

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, March 16

A seemingly harmless contention of being unemployed by a wife to grab maintenance from her husband can lead to her conviction for furnishing false evidence. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that an estranged spouse, who did not disclose information about her earnings and submitted wrong information of being unemployed, was liable to be proceeded against for furnishing false evidence.

Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi also ruled it was foremost duty of the party claiming maintenance to disclose the actual financial status to enable the court to decide upon the quantum of maintenance. The practice of making false assertions in the court ought to be discouraged as dignity and sanctity of the court was undermined by such conduct of a party.

The ruling by Justice Bedi came after a wife filed a revision petition against order dated October 13, 2021, whereby an Additional Principal Judge (Family Court) held it to be expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made against her for false evidence under Section 191 of the IPC.

Justice Bedi added a petition under Section 125 of the CrPC for maintenance is filed by a person unable to maintain herself or her children following lack of sufficient means. Referring to the facts of the case in hand, Justice Bedi asserted the petitioner joined a private university on July 3, 2017, as an Assistant Professor on a monthly salary of Rs 28,000. Her petition under Section 125 was filed on July 26, 2017.

She did not disclose the information about her job and earnings during the entire litigation, including the time her application for interim maintenance was decided.

“In my opinion, this explanation is completely fallacious. The petitioner is an Assistant Professor and a highly educated person. At no stage of proceedings up till her cross examination did she disclose that she was employed…. Assuming that the fact was missing in her petition under Section 125, the court could have been informed during the course of proceedings that there had been change of circumstances regarding her obtaining employment,” Justice Bedi asserted. Dismissing the plea, Justice Bedi added it could safely be said the possibility of her conviction was high and her actions were certainly deliberate and conscious to obtain maintenance.