The Family Court in Chennai has recently observed that a prima facie case of perjury exists against a husband who allegedly provided false information in his mandatory Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities. In a significant move toward ensuring the sanctity of judicial declarations, the Court has directed that the complaint be referred to a criminal court of competent jurisdiction for trial.

The order came following an application filed by the wife, who alleged that her husband had deliberately suppressed facts and misled the Court regarding his financial standing.

Arguments Advanced by Counsel

Representing the wife, Mr. Rahul Jagannathan argued that the husband had willfully polluted the stream of justice by filing a dishonest disclosure. The arguments focused heavily on the internal contradictions within the husband’s own filings and the legal mandate established by the Apex Court.

Key contentions raised by Mr. Jagannathan included:

• Internal Inconsistency as Evidence of Falsehood: Counsel pointed out a mathematical impossibility in the husband’s filings. The husband claimed an expenditure that was ten times higher than his declared income. Crucially, he failed to substantiate or explain the source of funds covering the massive deficit between his earnings and his lifestyle.
• Implied Admission through ‘Fresh’ Affidavits: It was argued that the husband’s attempt to file a subsequent, “fresh” affidavit with differing particulars acted as a de facto admission. By altering the figures in the second filing, the husband effectively conceded that the particulars provided in the initial affidavit were false.
• Direct Admission of Income Discrepancy: During the proceedings, it was highlighted that the husband had admitted his actual income did not align with the figures formally stated in his sworn affidavit.
• No Requirement for Preliminary Trial: Invoking the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha, Mr Rahul Jagannathan argued that in “glaring cases” of false particulars, the Court need not conduct a detailed inquiry before initiating perjury proceedings. The presence of clear, documented falsehoods is sufficient to trigger a criminal reference.

The Court’s Observations

• Accepting the arguments advanced by Mr Rahul Jagnannathan, the Family Court found merit in the allegation that the husband had committed perjury. The Court noted that the Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities is not a mere formality but a solemn statement upon which the quantum of maintenance and the rights of the parties depend.
• “The husband/accused provided false information in his affidavit of assets/liabilities statement… the Court is persuaded to refer the complaint to a criminal court of competent jurisdiction.”
• By allowing the complaint, the Family Court has paved the way for the husband to face a criminal trial under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) related to giving false evidence in judicial proceedings.

Why This Matters

Since the Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling in Rajnesh v. Neha, the filing of assets affidavits has become mandatory in matrimonial disputes to prevent parties from concealing their true financial capacity. This order by the Chennai Family Court reinforces the principle that any attempt to circumvent these disclosures through “creative bookkeeping” or outright lies will meet with criminal consequences, rather than just civil penalties.

#ChennaiFamilyCourt #PerjuryCase #FalseAffidavit #MatrimonialDispute #AssetDisclosure #IndianLaw #LegalUpdate #CourtOrder #CriminalTrial #RahulJagannathan  #FamilyLawIndia