A single judge of Allahabad High Court held that, perjury applications must be disposed first before deciding maintenance petitions, when false affidavit of Income, Assets and Liabilities is filed.

From Paras 8 onwards,

8. For considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the revisionist, it would be worthwhile to reproduce relevant portion of the allegations made by the revisionist against opposite party no.2 in his application under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
It is alleged in the said application that correct facts have not been mentioned by opposite party no.2 in column-C of the affidavit filed before the trial court in which details of her income have been sought at serial no.6. When as a matter of fact opposite party no.2 has received Rs. 84,000/- from Life Insurance Corporation, Kanpur Nagar through NIFT on 04.08.2023, which is clearly visible in the bank statement of account of opposite party no.2 bearing No. 40520100002777 maintained at Bank of Baroda.
It is further alleged that the opposite party no.2 operates a boutique on a large scale from which she earns Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 70,000/- per month. Thousands of rupees have also been credited in the Saving Bank Account of opposite party no.2 from the year 2020 to 2024, which is indicative of its strong income.
On the above premise, the revisionist has stated that since opposite party no.2 has filed a false affidavit as evidence by not showing her income in the column of income statement of said affidavit and has committed forgery, punitive action should be taken against her in the interest of justice.
9. In the case of Amit Bajpai (Supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the revisionist, the Hon’ble Single of Lucknow Bench has opined that in my view, if any application is moved in the pending case bringing to the notice of the court that any false evidence knowing well has been filed or fabricated in such proceedings, the court should dispose of the said application first before proceeding any further or before recording of further evidence. At the case in hand such procedure has not been adopted by the trial court while passing the impugned judgment.
10. This Court, which sits in revisional jurisdiction, cannot examine the legality or otherwise of the allegations made by the revisionist in his application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The same may be examined only by the trial court.
11. In the opinion of the Court, in the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C., the revisionist, has levelled serious allegations against the opposite party no.2 and if the trial court decides these allegations on the basis of documentary and oral evidence then the outcome of the main case may change. However, the trial court has not decided the said applications before deciding the instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. finally. In the interest of substantial justice, the trial court should have first decide the application filed by the revisionist under Section 340 Cr.P.C. before deciding the instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. finally.

Finally from Para 13,

13. Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No. 4, Kanpur Nagar is directed to decide the application of the revisionist under Section 340 Cr.P.C. first after hearing opposite party no. 2 by means of a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. After disposal of the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C., the Additional Principal Judge shall decide the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in accordance with law, by means of a reasoned and speaking order, after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties preferably within two months thereafter, without giving unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, if there is no other legal impediment.

Index to Perjury Judgments is here.