Kamaljeet Kaur and Anr Vs Harbhajan Singh and Anr on 26 Aug 2022

Posted on March 7 by ShadesOfKnife

The High Court held that initiation of proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was justified where the court found possible false statements regarding employment in a maintenance petition. The Court observed that such proceedings aim to protect the sanctity of judicial processes.

The Court ruled that the truth of the allegations must emerge during the enquiry. It dismissed the appeal and allowed the perjury proceedings to continue.

The following extracts form the basis of the Court’s reasoning.

“Admittedly, the dispute is between appellant No.1 and respondent No.1, who are husband and wife. Due to the matrimonial discord, appellant No.1 left the matrimonial home on 25.09.2017 and both of them started living separately.”

“A perusal of the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. makes it evident that if the 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 in Clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 195… such Court after such preliminary enquiry is competent to order the proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C.”

“Initiation of the proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is to carry out a thorough enquiry by affording opportunity to both the sides for establishing the truthfulness in the allegations.”

“Initiation of the proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. in itself cannot be said to be punitive. Rather the same is expedient in the interest of justice for maintaining the sanctity of the judicial proceedings.”

“After hearing the counsel for the appellants and perusing the record… this Court is of the opinion that the impugned complaint and impugned orders suffer from no illegality.”

Decision

The High Court dismissed the appeal.

It upheld the Family Court’s decision to initiate proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The Court held that such enquiry was necessary to determine the truth of the alleged false statements regarding employment.

However, the Court clarified that its observations would not influence the trial court during further proceedings.

Kamaljeet Kaur Vs Harbhajan Singh on 26 Aug 2022

Index of Perjury Judgements is here.

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Amit Bajpai Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 15 Dec 2023

Posted on March 4 by Suprajaa Rajan

The Allahabad High Court held that when a party files an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. alleging false affidavit, the Family Court must decide that application before proceeding with the maintenance case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court ruled that failure to do so vitiates the maintenance order if it relies on the disputed affidavit. The High Court set aside the maintenance order and directed the Family Court to first decide the perjury application within a fixed time frame.

“It is further submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the learned Family Court without deciding the application filed by the revisionist under Section 340 Cr.P.C. has proceeded with the case and decided the application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and maintenance has been awarded on relying the false affidavit filed by opposite party no.2.”

“Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State do not dispute the aforesaid legal position.”

“In view of above the criminal revision is allowed. The judgement and order dated 14.06.2023 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.-1, Kanpur Nagar in Case No.- 502 of 2020 is set aside.”

“Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.-1/court concerned is directed to decide the application filed by revisionist under Section 340 Cr.P.C. which was registered as Misc. Application No. 473 of 2022 within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, and thereafter the application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. expeditiously, without granting undue adjournments to either of the parties unless there is any legal impediments.”

Decision

The High Court allowed the criminal revision.

It set aside the maintenance order.
It directed the Family Court to first decide the Section 340 Cr.P.C. application.
It ordered that the maintenance case proceed only thereafter.

Amit Bajpai Vs State of UP on 15 Dec 2023

Citation :2023:AHC:238266

Other Sources :

Index of Perjury Judgements is here.

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com.,LL.B.,LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Mohammed Azeem Vs Sabeeha & Ors on 22 Sep 2025

Posted on February 18 by ShadesOfKnife

The High Court of Karnataka held that a Family Court has no jurisdiction to issue a Look Out Circular (LOC) for recovery of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

The Court ruled that enforcement of maintenance orders must strictly follow the mechanism provided under Section 125(3) CrPC read with Section 421 CrPC. It permits recovery through attachment and sale of property, and not by issuance of a Look Out Circular.

The Court further observed that continuing an LOC despite a judicial stay order amounts to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Below are the crucial paragraphs that formed the foundation of the Court’s decision:

Para 2
“It is submitted that Section 125(3) provides that in enforcement of the maintenance order Court may issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for fines as prescribed under Section 421 of Cr.P.C. Section 421 provides that a warrant for levy of fine by attachment of sale of immovable property.”
“Proviso to Section 421 provides that no such warrant shall be executed by arrest or detention in prison of the offender. The Family Court has no power to issue the look out circular in the process of executing the order of maintenance.”
“The Family Court has no power to issue the look out circular in the process of executing an order that is passed under Section 125 of CrPC.”
“Maintenance orders passed under Section 125 of CrPC is a civil obligation enforced through judicial orders. If party defaults the remedy is to seek execution of the order i.e., attachment of property, warrant of arrest and civil imprisonment.”
“Look out circulars are meant to prevent the accused/offenders from evading criminal process. The LOC cannot be issued for recovering the dues of maintenance.”
Para 6
“Further, continuing the LOC despite the order passed by the Court is illegal and amounts to contempt of Court and it also amounts to violation of rights guaranteed under article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

Mohammed Azeem Vs Saheeba and Ors

Citation :

Other Sources :

Index of Judgments about Look Out Circular notices is here.

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.,

+91-9606345150

Vivek Kumar Singh Vs Pallawi Kumari on 11 Mar 2025

Posted on February 11 by ShadesOfKnife

A single-judge Bench of the Patna High Court upheld an order granting maintenance to the wife under Section 125 CrPC. The husband challenged the order in revision. He argued that the wife had deserted him.

The Court held that a plea of desertion cannot defeat a maintenance claim by itself. The husband must first obtain a declaration from a competent matrimonial court. Until then, the wife remains entitled to claim maintenance.

The following paragraphs form the foundation of the Court’s reasoning:

“7. But unless the petitioner is able to get a declaration in his favour in the Matrimonial Case No. 25 of 2020 filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the opposite party no. 2 fails to justify her desertion, any challenge to the maintenance order is not sustainable.”
“7. It also transpires that the maintenance amount awarded to the opposite party no. 2 is about 25 percent of the net salary of the petitioner which is in tune with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision of Rajnesh Vs. Neha (2021).”

VivekKumarSinghVsPallawiKumari_11MAR2025_PatnaHC

Citation :

Other Sources :

Index of Maintenance judgements under Sec 125 CrPC is here.

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B, LL.M

Contact : +91-9606345150

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Section 125 CrPC

Kamaljeet Kaur and Anr Vs Harbhajan Singh and Anr on 26 Aug 2022

Decision

Amit Bajpai Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 15 Dec 2023

Decision

Mohammed Azeem Vs Sabeeha & Ors on 22 Sep 2025

Vivek Kumar Singh Vs Pallawi Kumari on 11 Mar 2025