This judgment below is just one example how the Indian judges treat women as precious commodity. Read the sentences in bold below to see how the trial court blankly refused to prosecute a woman for perjury in her maintenance case. The ostensible reason given is so that the parties can avoid undue complication of the matrimonial dispute. As if people come to court to hug each other!
Read my maintenance book (DV and CrPC 125) if you want to save HARD EARNED money. Use coupon code MenToo to get 52% discount and help it win Sales Contest to promote #MenToo awareness. (Kindle eBook version) (Print Paperback version)
Download my free PDF eBook Surviving the Legal Jungle
Don't be a lone ranger... JOIN our Facebook group to connect
Read this FREE eBook written by fathers involved in child custody issues(PDF book)
CRA No. 197 SB of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CRA No. 197 SB of 2010 (O&M)
Date of decision: 25-1-2010
Sunny Bhumbla .........Appellant Vs
Shashi .........Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL
Present: Shri K.S.Boparai, Advocate, for the appellant. HARBANS LAL, J.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 5.12.2008 Annexure
P-1 passed by the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Saheed Bhagat
Singh Nagar vide which he allowed the petition moved under Section 9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, for restitution of conjugal rights leaving the parties to
bear their own costs and rejected the application moved under Section 195/340
I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, besides
perusing the record with due care and circumspection. The learned counsel for
the appellant has submitted with great eloquence that after the respondent
admitted in her cross-examination about her employment, salary and inheritance
of the landed property, she again placed on record another affidavit dated
27.8.2008 solemnly affirming therein that she had inadvertently not mentioned
about the source of income as well as employment in the earlier affidavit dated
14.8.2008. Thereafter the appellant moved an application under Section 195 of
Cr.P.C. for initiating proceedings against the respondent for submitting a
false affidavit CRA No. 197 SB of 2010 (O&M) 2 before the learned trial Court,
in order to get more maintenance from the appellant. The learned trial Court
had assured the appellant that his said application shall be decided alongwith
the main case. While deciding the main petition, in paragraph No. 13 of the
judgment it has been observed that "in support of her claim for interim
maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the
respondent/applicant had made certain assertions, which were found to be
totally false and the same had apparently been done by her in a deliberate
manner. Consequently even an application for initiating suitable proceedings
against her on account of her having submitted a false affidavit was also filed
by the petitioner on 3.9.2008. Thereafter, the respondent did not press her
claim for interim maintenance, but the same did not absolve her of the
liability of the aforesaid lapse. This court, however, does not wish to
initiate any such proceedings against the respondent with the hope that sooner
or later, the parties may be in a position to resolve their dispute or else
this young couple may adopt such other means so that they can part their ways
in a peaceful manner and therefore, with a view to avoid undue complication of
the matrimonial dispute, no action on account of submitting of the above false
affidavit etc. is being initiated against the respondent."
It is further argued that the learned trial Court has overlooked
the fact that the respondent has used the false affidavit in the judicial
proceedings. Therefore, all the ingredients of the offences of cheating,
forging and perjury etc. are made out and consequently, the order passed by the
learned trial Court in not initiating the proceedings under Section 195 read
with Section 340 Cr.P.C. is illegal.
CRA No. 197 SB of 2010 (O&M) 3 I have given a deep and thoughtful
consideration to these submissions.
A careful perusal of the observations rendered by the learned trial
Court in paragraph No. 13 of the impugned judgment would reveal that there is
not even a shred of reference to the application moved under Section 195 read
with Section 340 Cr.P.C. This apart, no specific reasons have been apportioned
for not initiating the action on the basis of the alleged affidavit. The said
application having been moved under the provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure was required to be disposed of separately. It was not desirable on
the part of the learned trial Court to decide the said application in a slip
shod manner by making mere passing reference to the alleged affidavit. In the
application moved under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. if the Court deems fit,the
inquiry has to be held whereas in the present one, the impugned order is
absolutely silent as to whether or not inquiry was held. There is specific
procedure which is to be followed while disposing of an application moved under
Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 340 of the Criminal
Procedure Code reads as under:-
"340.Procedure in cases mentioned in Sec.195--(1) When, upon an
application made to it in this behalf or otherwise any Court is of the opinion
that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made
into any offence referred to to in cl (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195,
which appears to have been committed in or in relation to to a proceeding in
that Court, or as the case may be, in respect of of a document produced or
given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, CRA No. 197 SB of 2010 (O&M) 4
such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary.
(a) record a finding to that effect.
(b) make a complaint thereof in writing
(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction.
(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before
such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non- bailable and the Court
thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate;
and (e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such
(2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section (1) in respect of an
offence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a complaint under
sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the
making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court
is subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of Sec.195.
(3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed (a)
where the Court making complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court
as the Court may appoint.
(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court,
(4) In this section, "Court" has the same meaning as in CRA No.
197 SB of 2010 (O&M) 5 Sec.195."
A glance through the impugned order would reveal that the learned
trial Court has given a go by to the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. The
approach adopted by the learned trial Court is unwholesome and is depreciable.
The impugned order is absolutely silent as to whether the application has been
dismissed or allowed, if so for which reasons. In consequence of the preceding
discussion the trial Court is directed to decide the application under
discussion in accordance with law. This appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
January 25, 2010
NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes/No