PARVEEN KUMAR Vs. ANJU AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court challenging order dated 10.9.2019, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Narnaul, wherein an application filed by the petitioner-husband under Section 340 Cr.PC. has been dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner's wife i.e. respondent No.1- Anju had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner seeking grant of maintenance. The petitioner moved an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. read with Section 195 Cr.P.C. for initiating proceedings against the respondent-Anju for having perjured the Court. The petitioner alleged that respondent No.1 had made certain mis-representations to the effect that upon an ultrasound conducted upon her, she was found to be carrying a male embryo, which was got aborted whereas in fact no such sex determination could have been possible when the pregnancy was barely 7 weeks and 6 days old. The Trial Court considered the application and dismissed the same vide impugned order dated 10.9.2019, whereby a cost of Rs. 10,000/- was also imposed upon the petitioner which was directed to be paid to his minor child.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Trial Court did not appreciate the matter in the correct perspective and that contentions of the respondent regarding determination of sex when the embryo was 7 weeks and 6 days old are patently false. The learned counsel has further submitted that in fact the Trial Court also fell in error in nominating Sh. R.S.Nain, Advocate as amicus curiae when in fact said Advocate had been representing the respondentwife in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and thus could not be said to be an independent Advocate.