The Madras High Court has clarified that suppression of financial details in an affidavit of assets and liabilities, without proof of wilful intent to deceive, does not amount to perjury warranting criminal prosecution under Section 340 read with Section 195 of the CrPC. This ruling reinforces the high threshold required to initiate proceedings for abuse of judicial process in matrimonial disputes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, A. Parameswaran, filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in F.C.O.P. No. 396 of 2021 before the Family Court, Chengalpattu, alleging cruelty by his wife, P. Vaijayanthimala. The marriage was solemnized on 26.10.2020. The respondent-wife filed an interlocutory application in F.C.I.A. No. 3 of 2022 seeking interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Key Facts
- The respondent filed an affidavit of assets and liabilities dated 15.01.2022, disclosing no independent income, no liabilities, and monthly expenses of Rs. 50,000 for personal use and Rs. 30,000 for dependents.
- She submitted bank statements for the preceding three years and educational qualifications.
- The petitioner filed his own affidavit disclosing a gross monthly income of Rs. 69,800 as a News Reader-cum-Journalist, with personal and business loans.
- The Family Court, based on these affidavits, awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 8,000 per month to the respondent on 12.07.2022.
- During the proceedings, the petitioner discovered a deposit of Rs. 1,04,000 in the respondent’s account with Jana Small Finance Bank, which she had not disclosed.
- The petitioner alleged this sum represented undisclosed income from hand-loan business, but provided no documentary evidence to substantiate the source or nature of the transaction.
- The Family Court observed that the deposit could have been made by the petitioner himself and found no proof of wilful suppression or false declaration by the respondent.
Procedural History
- 26.10.2020: Marriage solemnized in Chengalpattu.
- 12.06.2021: Petitioner filed F.C.O.P. No. 396 of 2021 seeking divorce.
- 15.01.2022: Respondent filed affidavit of assets and liabilities under Rajnesh v. Neha guidelines.
- 12.07.2022: Family Court awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 8,000 per month.
- 18.01.2023: Petitioner filed F.C.I.A. No. 5 of 2023 seeking initiation of proceedings under Section 340 read with Section 195 CrPC.
- 18.08.2023: Family Court dismissed the application, holding no prima facie case of perjury.
- 22.09.2023: Civil Revision Petition No. 4236 of 2023 filed before Madras High Court.
- 09.12.2025: Order reserved.
- 01.04.2026: Judgment pronounced.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the Family Court’s order dated 18.08.2023 and direction to initiate criminal proceedings under Section 340 CrPC against the respondent for allegedly filing a false affidavit.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether mere non-disclosure of a bank deposit in an affidavit of assets and liabilities, without proof of wilful intent to deceive or fabricate facts, constitutes an offence under Section 340 read with Section 195 of the CrPC.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain, M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana, J. Samuel v. Gattu Mahesh, and Sh. Narendra Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar to argue that suppression of material facts in judicial affidavits amounts to abuse of process and warrants criminal prosecution. He contended that the undisclosed Rs. 1,04,000 deposit demonstrated deliberate concealment to secure higher maintenance, thereby satisfying the ingredients of perjury and falsification of evidence.
For the Respondent
The respondent did not appear or file any written submissions. The Court proceeded on the basis of the record and the Family Court’s findings.
The Court's Analysis
The Court emphasized that affidavits of assets and liabilities, filed under the Supreme Court’s directions in Rajnesh v. Neha, are meant to facilitate fair determination of interim maintenance, not to serve as grounds for retaliatory criminal proceedings. The Court noted that while full disclosure is mandatory, not every omission or unverified statement rises to the level of perjury.
"Merely because certain statements made in the affidavit have not been substantiated by the wife or the husband, as the case may be, the same cannot as such be construed as perjury."
The Court held that the petitioner’s allegations were vague and general, lacking specificity regarding what facts were suppressed, how they were material, or how they were intentionally falsified. The Family Court had correctly observed that the Rs. 1,04,000 deposit could have originated from the petitioner himself, and no evidence was adduced to prove the respondent’s knowledge or intent to mislead.
The Court distinguished the cited precedents, noting they involved clear fabrication, forged documents, or proven false testimony - not mere non-disclosure of a bank balance without corroborative proof of fraudulent intent. The Court reiterated that Section 340 CrPC is not a tool for settling personal scores and requires a high threshold of proof of deliberate falsehood with intent to influence judicial outcome.
The Verdict
The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed. The Madras High Court upheld the Family Court’s order dated 18.08.2023 dismissing the application under Section 340 CrPC. The Court found no illegality or irregularity in the Family Court’s reasoning. No costs were awarded to either party.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Non-Disclosure Alone Is Not Perjury
- Practitioners must now demonstrate wilful intent to deceive, not just omission, to invoke Section 340 CrPC in matrimonial proceedings.
- Affidavits must be scrutinized for specific, material falsehoods, not general inconsistencies or unverified claims.
- Courts will not entertain applications under Section 340 CrPC as a tactical tool to undermine interim maintenance orders.
Rajnesh Affidavits Are Not Criminal Traps
- The Supreme Court’s directive in Rajnesh v. Neha to file affidavits of assets is procedural, not punitive.
- Parties should not be penalized criminally for incomplete disclosures unless there is conclusive evidence of fabrication.
- Legal advisors must caution clients against filing retaliatory Section 340 applications without concrete proof of dishonesty.
Burden of Proof Remains on the Accuser
- The burden lies squarely on the party alleging perjury to establish: (a) the statement was false, (b) it was made knowingly, and (c) it was material to the judicial outcome.
- Vague allegations, unsupported by documents or independent evidence, will be dismissed at the threshold.
- Family Courts must apply a strict prima facie test before entertaining such applications.
