Section 125 CrPC| Can Wife Be Prosecuted for Exaggerating Husband’s Income? Allahabad High Court Says No

The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a criminal appeal filed by a husband seeking perjury proceedings against his wife over alleged false statements regarding his income in a maintenance case, holding that such action is not warranted unless it is expedient in the interest of justice.

"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,” the bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh.

Court was dealing with a challenge to an order of the family court at Prayagraj, which had rejected an application filed under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, now reflected under Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The application sought initiation of criminal proceedings against the wife for allegedly making false statements on oath in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC (corresponding to Section 144 BNSS).

The appellant-husband argued that his wife had deliberately misstated his monthly income in her affidavit. According to him, she had claimed his income to be ₹80,000 per month, and in another instance ₹1,25,000, whereas his actual earnings were only ₹11,000 per month. On this basis, he contended that offences relating to false evidence and false claims were made out, and the family court erred in refusing to initiate prosecution.

Opposing the appeal, the wife submitted that the husband is an advocate with multiple sources of income, including agriculture and rental earnings, which he had allegedly concealed. It was argued that the determination of income is a matter of evidence and adjudication before the family court, and merely disputing the income figure does not justify invoking perjury proceedings. The wife also alleged that the husband was attempting to delay the maintenance proceedings through such applications.

The high court, after hearing both sides, examined the scope and object of Section 340 CrPC. It noted that the provision is intended as a safeguard against frivolous and vexatious prosecutions and can be invoked only where the court forms an opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice to inquire into an offence affecting the administration of justice.

Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam and another (1971) and Jaswinder Singh v. Smt. Paramjit Kaur (1985), court reiterated that prosecution for perjury should be sanctioned only in cases where the falsehood appears deliberate and conscious, and where the likelihood of conviction is reasonably strong. Court emphasised that not every incorrect or disputed statement justifies criminal prosecution, particularly in adversarial proceedings where parties may take conflicting positions.

Court further observed that in maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, it is not uncommon for claimants to state a higher income of the opposite party. However, such assertions are subject to scrutiny based on evidence led before the family court. Until such adjudication takes place, the correctness or otherwise of the statements cannot be conclusively determined.

In the present case, the high court noted that the maintenance proceedings were still pending and the issue of the husband’s income had yet to be decided. In such circumstances, initiating perjury proceedings would be premature and unwarranted. Court found that the family court had passed a reasoned order and that no material illegality or perversity could be demonstrated.

Court also cautioned against the misuse of Section 340 CrPC as a tool for settling personal disputes, observing that courts should not become instruments in the hands of litigants seeking to pursue private vendetta.

Holding that no case was made out for interference, the high court concluded that there was no expediency in the interest of justice to direct prosecution for alleged false statements. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Case Title: Shiva Kant Dubey vs. State of U.P. and Another

Bench: Raj Beer Singh

Order Date: March 13, 2026