The Madras High Court has upheld a Family Court’s decision to refer a criminal complaint against a husband for perjury, observing that the sanctity of judicial proceedings relies on the absolute honesty of parties filing affidavits. The Court dismissed the husband’s appeal, noting that deliberate concealment of financial assets to evade maintenance obligations constitutes a serious offense.

Counsel’s Contentions: Deliberate Deception to Evade Maintenance

The matter arose from a matrimonial dispute where the Family Court had directed the husband to disclose his assets and liabilities. Mr. Rahul Jagannathan, appearing for the wife, contended that the husband had willfully suppressed material facts and provided false particulars in his sworn affidavit.

Mr. Rahul Jagannathan primary arguments included:

• Intentional Fraud: The husband deliberately undervalued his income and concealed existing assets to portray a state of financial incapacity.
• Evasion of Legal Duty: The sole motive behind the false filing was to mislead the court and thereby evade the payment of fair maintenance to the wife and their minor daughter.
• Integrity of Affidavits: Mr. Rahul Jagannathan argued that allowing such “calculated dishonesty” to go unpunished would render the Supreme Court’s mandates on mandatory asset disclosure (such as in Rajnesh v. Neha) toothless.

The Court’s Findings

The Hon’ble Bench, after perusing the records, found a clear discrepancy between the husband’s actual financial standing and the declarations made in his affidavit. The Court emphasized that when a party takes a categorical oath, they are legally bound to state the truth.

Key highlights of the Court’s direction:

• Prima Facie Perjury: The Court found sufficient grounds to believe that the husband had committed an offense under Section 191 of the IPC (Giving false evidence), punishable under Section 193.
• No Merit in Appeal: The High Court held that the Family Court was perfectly justified in exercising its power under Section 340 of the CrPC to lodge a formal complaint before the Magistrate.
• Protection of Dependents: The Court noted that suppressing assets in maintenance cases is not just a legal lapse but a socio-economic wrong, as it directly affects the livelihood of the wife and child.

Dismissal of the Appeal

Rejecting the husband’s plea to set aside the perjury referral, the Madras High Court affirmed the lower court’s order. The Court remarked that litigants who “play fast and loose” with the truth must face the consequences of the law.

“A party who comes to the Court with unclean hands and seeks to overreach the judicial process by filing false affidavits deserves no leniency. The Family Court’s proactive step in referring the matter for a criminal complaint is necessary to deter such conduct.”

With this ruling, the criminal proceedings against the husband for perjury will proceed before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

#MadrasHighCourt #PerjuryCase #FalseAffidavit #AssetConcealment #FamilyCourt #MaintenanceCase #JudicialIntegrity  #IndianLaw