JAGJIT KAUR Vs. HARJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was married to the respondent No. 1 on 25.9.1977. Sometime after marriage, respondent No. l was transferred to Nagaland. Unfortunately, the appellant could not accompany him to Nagaland as a result whereof some dark, portentous cloud started hovering between her and the happiness she had so joyfully anticipated. A Naga woman in the shape of a serpent entered into the paradise of her happiness and her husband (respondent No. 1) had fallen. The said Naga woman had stolen away his affection, and by the magical sorcery of the seducer's spell, had transformed his former love into settled hatred and aversion. Respondent No. 1, whom she had left so kind, so full of affection, on his posting at Shimla, greeted her with cold indifference and even denied her those matrimonial privileges, which as a legally wedded wife, were her of right to demand. Dispirited and discouraged at the failure to regain her husband's affection, her vision of happiness dissipated and she approached the Army Authorities for maintenance, which was granted. Overpowered by the fascinations of his concubine, respondent No. 1 filed a petition against the appellant for dissolution of marriage. By the order dated 20.7.1988 passed by the Supreme Court, the said petition was transferred from Amritsar to Delhi. On 1.12.1988, the appellant filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming for maintenance pendente lite on the ground that she was having no independent source of income or means to maintain herself and her child. Believing the affidavit filed by the appellant, the learned Additional District Judge granted interim maintenance to the appellant at Rs. 1,000.00 per month for herself and Rs. 300.00 per month for her minor child vide orders dated 18.3.1989. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application before the Supreme Court for transfer of the defamation case pending against her before the Danapur Court. In that application, she stated that she was employed as a teacher in Badal Academy, Faridkot (Punjab). Taking advantage of the averments made in the said application, the respondent No. 1, on 18.10.1995, filed an application under Section 151 CPC for modification of the maintenance order dated 18.3.1989. By the order dated 22.7.1996, learned ADJ allowed the application of the respondent No. 1 and vacated the maintenance order dated 18.3.1989. After passing of the modification order dated 22.7.1996, respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for making an enquiry into the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant under Sections 193/199 IPC.

(2.) The application was opposed by the appellant, the learned Additional District Judge took the view that it was expedient to make a criminal complaint against the appellant as the materials available make out a prima facie case under Sections 193/199 IPC against her. He, therefore, allowed the petition under Section 340 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent No. 1 and directed the appellant's prosecution for perjury vide orders dated 22.8.1997. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has come up in appeal before this Court.

(3.) It is undisputed that in the divorce proceedings initiated by the respondent No. 1, the appellant had filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act supported by her affidavit claiming interim maintenance on the ground that she was having no independent source of income or means to maintain her and her child and that interim maintenance was granted to her and her child on the basis of the said averments made in the application. It is also undisputed that in an application filed by the appellant before the Supreme Court for transfer of defamation case filed by the respondent No. 1, she had stated that she was employed as teacher in Badal Academy, Faridkot, Punjab. In view of the said admissions it cannot be doubted that in the divorce proceedings, the appellant succeeded in obtaining a maintenance order on the ground of a false statement that she was having no independent source of income or means to maintain her and her child. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 contended that the expediency for prosecuting the appellant for the offence of perjury was justified as the appellant deliberately utilised the process of Court for the purpose of getting anorder of maintenance on the basis of incorrect and false statement.