Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Dr. Santosh Chandrashekar Shetty (husband), filed a Civil Application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking perjury proceedings against his wife, Mrs. Ameeta Santosh Shetty (first respondent), for allegedly making false and misleading statements on oath in her reply to Civil Application No.67 of 2016 and in Civil Application No.220 of 2016 filed by her. The husband had earlier filed a divorce petition which was dismissed by the Family Court, and he was directed to pay permanent alimony of Rs.30,000 per month to the wife and Rs.15,000 per month to their daughter. The husband appealed against this decree (Family Court Appeal No.113 of 2014), and the wife filed cross-objections. During the pendency of the appeal, the wife filed applications seeking compliance with the maintenance order. The husband alleged that the wife falsely stated that he had not paid maintenance, whereas he claimed to have paid certain amounts. The court examined the statements made by the wife and found that they were based on her understanding and were not necessarily false. The court noted that the husband had not complied with the maintenance orders, which weakened his case. The court also observed that the husband had filed a transfer application seeking to transfer the case from the bench headed by Justice A.S. Oka, which was dismissed. The court held that mere false statements in pleadings do not constitute perjury under Section 340 Cr.P.C. without a specific finding of intentional falsehood and that prosecution is expedient in the interest of justice. The court found that the husband failed to establish the necessary elements and dismissed the application.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Perjury - Section 340 Cr.P.C. - False Statements in Pleadings - The court considered whether false statements made in a reply and an application filed by the wife in a family court appeal constitute an offence under Section 340 Cr.P.C. - The court held that mere false statements in pleadings do not automatically warrant prosecution; there must be a specific finding that the statements were intentionally false and that it is expedient in the interest of justice to prosecute. The court found that the husband failed to establish that the statements were made with the requisite intent or that prosecution was necessary. (Paras 1-10)
B) Family Law - Maintenance - Arrears of Maintenance - The husband had been directed to pay arrears of maintenance and ongoing maintenance to the wife and daughter. The wife's statements regarding non-payment were found to be based on her understanding and not necessarily false. The court noted that the husband had not complied with the maintenance orders, which undermined his credibility. (Paras 2-5)
C) Criminal Procedure - Transfer Application - Recusal - The husband had filed a transfer application seeking to transfer the case from the bench headed by one of the judges. The court noted that the transfer application was dismissed, and the matter was reheard. The court observed that the husband's conduct in filing the transfer application indicated an attempt to avoid the bench. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for initiating perjury proceedings against the wife for allegedly making false statements in her pleadings and affidavits, should be allowed.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C., holding that the husband failed to establish that the wife's statements were intentionally false or that prosecution was expedient in the interest of justice.
Law Points
- Perjury
- Section 340 Cr.P.C.
- False statements
- Pleadings
- Necessity of prosecution
- Intentional falsehood
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (01) 73
Civil Application No.72 of 2017 in Family Court Appeal No.113 of 2014
A.S. Oka, Anuja Prabhudessai
Mr. Nilesh C. Ojha a/w Mr. Partho Sarkar, Mr. Tanveer Nizam, Mr. Vijay Kurle, Mr. Jay Shah, Ms. Shweta Doshi, Ms. Tanvi Kambli, Ms. Madhuri Gamre, Ms. Reena S. Rana, Ms.Shashikala Chauhan and Ms. Shraddha Chaurasiya for the Applicant. Mrs. Ameeta Santosh Shetty, Respondent in person.
Dr. Santosh Chandrashekar Shetty
Mrs. Ameeta Santosh Shetty, State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for initiating perjury proceedings against the wife for allegedly making false statements in her pleadings and affidavits in a family court appeal.
Remedy Sought
The husband sought an action against the wife under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for making false and misleading statements on oath.
Filing Reason
The husband alleged that the wife made false statements in her reply to Civil Application No.67 of 2016 and in Civil Application No.220 of 2016 filed by her.
Previous Decisions
The Family Court dismissed the husband's divorce petition and ordered him to pay permanent alimony. The husband appealed, and the wife filed cross-objections. Interim orders were passed regarding maintenance arrears.
Issues
Whether the wife made false statements on oath in her pleadings and affidavits.
Whether such false statements warrant initiation of perjury proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
Submissions/Arguments
The husband argued that the wife falsely stated that he had not paid maintenance, whereas he had paid certain amounts.
The wife contended that her statements were true and based on her understanding, and that the husband had not complied with the maintenance orders.
Ratio Decidendi
Mere false statements in pleadings do not constitute perjury under Section 340 Cr.P.C. without a specific finding that the statements were intentionally false and that it is expedient in the interest of justice to prosecute. The court must be satisfied that the falsehood was deliberate and that prosecution is necessary.
Judgment Excerpts
The case made out in the application in short is that the first respondent – wife made false and misleading statements on oath in her reply filed to Civil Application No.67 of 2016 and in Civil Application No.220 of 2016 filed by her.
By judgment and order dated 25th November 2015, the prayer for grant of divorce was dismissed by the learned Judge of the Family Court.
The learned Judge of the Family Court, inter alia, ordered and decreed the applicant to pay permanent alimony of Rs.30,000/ pm to the first respondent wife and Rs.15,000/ pm to the daughter.
On 5th October 2015, a Division Bench of this Court passed the following order : ...
The court held that mere false statements in pleadings do not automatically warrant prosecution; there must be a specific finding that the statements were intentionally false and that it is expedient in the interest of justice to prosecute.
Procedural History
The husband filed a divorce petition which was dismissed by the Family Court on 25.11.2015. He appealed (Family Court Appeal No.113 of 2014). The wife filed cross-objections. During the appeal, the wife filed applications for maintenance compliance. The husband filed Civil Application No.72 of 2017 under Section 340 Cr.P.C. alleging false statements by the wife. The application was assigned to this Bench on 24.07.2017. Submissions were heard on 24.11.2017, but the court noticed a transfer application filed by the husband seeking transfer from the bench. The matter was adjourned until the transfer application was decided. The transfer application was dismissed on 14.06.2018, and the application was reheard.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 340
