Can a husband take legal action if his wife exaggerates his income in court? Or is the system designed to ignore such claims unless proven very serious?
PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad High Court has made an observation in a maintenance dispute. The Court said that it is commonly seen that wives may exaggerate the husband’s income while asking for maintenance. However, this alone does not mean that criminal action for giving false statements (perjury) will automatically start against her.
The case came before the Court after a husband challenged a Family Court order. The Family Court had refused to start action under Section 340 CrPC along with Section 379 BNSS against the wife. The husband was not satisfied and filed an appeal.
The husband argued that in a maintenance case under Section 125 CrPC, his wife gave false information about his income. According to him, she showed his income as ₹80,000 and ₹1,25,000 at different places, while his real income was only ₹11,000 per month. Based on this, he claimed that offences under Sections 211, 213, 222, and 232 of BNS should be applied against her.
On the other side, the wife’s lawyer argued that the husband, who is an advocate with long practice, was hiding his real earnings. It was claimed that he also had agricultural and rental income which he did not disclose. The lawyer said that the correct income can only be decided by the Family Court based on evidence from both sides.
The High Court first explained the purpose of Section 340 CrPC / Section 379 BNSS. It said that this provision is meant to prevent misuse of the legal system through unnecessary or false criminal complaints.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam (1971). It stated that perjury action should be taken only when the false statement is clearly intentional and when there is a strong chance of conviction.
The Court further clarified that even if a false statement is suspected, it is not mandatory for the court to file a complaint every time. The court must first decide whether it is necessary in the interest of justice.
“This expediency will normally be judged by the court by weighing not the magnitude of injury suffered by the person affected by such forgery or forged document, but having regard to the effect or impact, such commission of offence has upon administration of justice”
The Court also clearly stated that courts should not be used by parties to settle personal scores or to take revenge through legal proceedings.
Looking at the facts of this case, the High Court said there was no need to start perjury proceedings against the wife at this stage. The Court pointed out that the issue of the husband’s actual income is still pending before the Family Court and will be decided based on proper evidence.
Since there was no clear illegality or error in the Family Court’s decision, the High Court dismissed the husband’s appeal.
Explanatory Table Of Laws & Sections Involved
| Section / Law | Law Name | Purpose | Relevance in This Case |
| Section 125 CrPC | Criminal Procedure Code | Provides maintenance to wife, children, parents | Wife filed maintenance case claiming higher income |
| Section 340 CrPC | Criminal Procedure Code | Procedure to initiate perjury (false evidence) cases | Husband sought action alleging false affidavit |
| Section 195(1)(b) CrPC | Criminal Procedure Code | Restricts courts from taking cognizance of perjury without court complaint | Governs when Section 340 can be used |
| Section 379 BNSS | Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita | New procedural equivalent of CrPC provisions | Used along with Section 340 for complaint |
| Section 380 BNSS | Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita | Provision for appeal in such matters | Appeal filed under this section |
| Sections 211, 213, 222, 232 BNS | Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita | False charge, false evidence, etc. | Husband alleged these offences against wife |
| Sections 193–196 IPC (via 195 CrPC) | Indian Penal Code | Offences related to false evidence and perjury | Basis for invoking Section 340 CrPC |
| Section 463, 471 IPC | Indian Penal Code | Forgery and use of forged documents | Covered under perjury-related provisions |
Case Details
- Case Title: Shivakant Dubey vs State of U.P. and Another
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 2026
- Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- Bench: Hon’ble Justice Raj Beer Singh
- Date of Judgment: 13 March 2026
- Neutral Citation: 2026: AHC: 51669
- Appellant Counsel: Shiva Kant Dubey
- Respondent Counsel: G.A., Sanjiv Kumar Pandey
- Lower Court Order Challenged: Order dated 28.10.2025, Family Court No.4, Prayagraj
Key Takeaways
- Court openly accepts that wives commonly exaggerate husband’s income in maintenance cases.
- Even after such acknowledgment, no automatic legal action is allowed against false claims.
- Burden still remains on the husband to prove his real income through long litigation.
- Perjury laws exist, but courts apply them only in rare and extreme situations.
- System effectively allows inflated allegations to continue without immediate consequence.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.
