DHIMANT PRAVINCHANDRA SHAH Vs. SONAL DHIMANTBHAI SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed under Sec. 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), challenging the order passed by Judge, Family Court No. 2, Ahmedabad, dtd. 10/2/2022, whereby while awarding maintenance to the respondent - wife and in final conclusion rejecting application Exhibit - 36, whereby appellant - husband gave an application to initiate action for filing complaint under Ss. 191, 192, 193, 196, 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code against respondent - wife as she has given an application claiming maintenance, and in her examination-in-chief, asserted false facts on oath which came to be rejected, as recorded in para 12.1 to 12.5 of the impugned judgment and that order is challenged by way of a separate revision application. The copy of the said judgment and order is also annexed in this appeal.

(2.) It appears that in between the parties i.e. respondent and wife, because of strained relationship, proceedings are filed since 2008 and by way of an application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 2886 of 2016, respondent - wife claimed enhancement of maintenance, earlier determined by the Court, which came to be allowed. Since appeal is against the reasons and finding recorded in para 12.1 to 12.5 of the impugned judgment and order, rejecting an application Exhibit - 36 filed by the appellant - husband, the other details with regard to evidence brought on record would not be necessary to be dealt with in detail.

(3.) Mr. Nirad D. Buch, learned advocate for the appellant, submitted that since on oath, the respondent - wife has given an evidence before the Court in respect of expenses incurred by her towards the education of their sons for claiming enhancement of maintenance, which is proved to be false by the husband during the course of evidence led in the enhancement proceeding by examining the witness from the school where children are studying that what she claimed in an application and deposition that she has to incur huge amount towards their education, as claimed in an application and expenditure running into Rs.2.00 to 3 Lacs, whereas evidence brought on record by the husband reveals that for one of the son, she has to pay yearly fees of Rs.27,000.00 and for another son, she has to pay Rs.30,240.00 yearly. Therefore, he has submitted that the respondent - wife has a audacity to claim enhancement of maintenance on the ground that she has to incur huge expenditure towards the education of the sons, which is found to be incorrect. She is not telling truth on oath, and therefore, she is required to be proceeded with for the offences mentioned in application Exhibit - 36 filed in view of Sec. 340 read with Sec. 195 of "the Code".