Short summary: To prove his wife is working and not entitled to maintenance, a Gujarat man gives video evidence of wife working in a firm, the firm owner refuses to identify that woman, court denies man’s request to get account books of firm to confirm salary being paid to wife, and HC overturns trial court order to allow producing the account books.
Read my book on how to save on maintenance under CrPC 125 and DV Act. (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 (Read Online)(PDF book)
To prove his wife’s employment, Rajesh called the firm’s owner as a witness, who said that Meena was not working in his firm. Rajesh produced a video recording in the courtroom, showing a woman working in this office. However, the employer refused to identify the woman. On this, the husband asked for account books to confirm if his firm paid a salary to Meena.
The court didn’t allow the call for account books to verify the employment and to verify that the witness had lied by not identifying the woman in the video recording. Hence, Rajesh moved the HC and argued that it is the only evidence, and he should be allowed to call for account books to verify his wife’s job as revealed in the video.
Now this is the kind of thing more and more husbands need to do if they really want to fight maintenance cases and reduce maintenance. Collect evidence of wife’s work, produce it vigorously rather than half-heartedly in front of court, fight objections with good reasoned arguments, and then see how different the results will be!
Not only that, the High court suggested that the man can file perjury against any false evidence given by wife.
“If morphing is found, the husband will be in trouble, but the mere allegation is not sufficient. There are several other allegations regarding false evidence and information on record by the wife also, for that the husband may apply for perjury,” the HC said.