NRI Law Office, Punjab

Dt. 10th November 2017 * Action against wife for false claim of maintenance* * Bombay High Court Bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Anuja Prabhudesai rese...rved the order* * Husband has asked for prosecution of his wife under Sec.191, 192, 193, 196, 199, 200, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 474 of Indian Penal Code for claiming maintenance by providing wrong information about the level of income of the husband* * Court did not allow the wife to respond as she is would-be accused in the present proceedings under Sec. 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure* * Counsel for husband Adv. Nilesh Ojha prayed for directions to be issued to all Courts in Maharashtra to adopt the provisions of Sec. 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure, against the mischievous wife or husband who misuses the court process to harass the opposite party to extort money or for ulterior purposes* A Division Bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Anuja Prabhudesai was specially constituted by Chief Justice of Bombay High Court Smt. Manjulla Chellur, to hear the petition filed by renowned Irthopedic surgeon of Mumbai, Dr. Santosh Shetty against his wife for filing false affidavits in her claim for maintenance. While advancing his arguments before bench Adv. Ojha said: There are numerous cases of women framing their husbands under cases of dowry and domestic violence. In the present case, the wife had filed a false affidavit stating that the husband is a partner in TATA and Orbit Hospital and that he owned many hospitals in Mumbai. Being prejudiced on the said submission of wife and without verifying the truthfulness of her submissions and without considering the defense of the husband, the Family Court, Bandra had straight away granted maintenance of Rs. 60,000 per month to wife. The husband had filed an Appeal before the Bombay High Court for setting aside the said order while the wife filed an application for increasing the maintenance. Adv. Ojha added: Only because the wife had no fear of any action being initiated against her, her confidence strengthened and she dared to file the petition for enhancement of maintenance, while the maintenance is infact liable to be quashed and the money paid by the husband till date is liable to be recovered from the wife. Adv. Ojha cited many judgments of High Courts and Supreme Court and requested the Court to call a report from Police and if in the enquiry report if it is proved that wife’s affidavit is false, then she(wife)be committed to Police Custody as done in Ashok Sarogi’s case. Justice Oka asked as to whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to make complaint against the wife. In response to this query ,Adv. Ojha cited the judgment of Supreme Court in K.D. Sharma’s case which states that if the court does not take action in such cases of perjury, then the Judge is failing in his duties. Thereafter Justice Oka was of the view that the wife should be heard before launching prosecution against her. This query was answered by Adv. Ojha, by citing a Full Bench judgment of Supreme Court and recent judgment of Bombay High Court in Haresh Milani’s case MANU/MH/0804/2017. Agreeing with the said legal position, Justice Oka refused to entertain the petitioner’s wife in proceedings under Sec.340 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Adv. Nilesh Ojha along with Adv. Kruti Bhavsar, Adv. Ishwarlal Agarwal,Adv. Vijay Kurle Adv. Reena Rana, Adv. Madhuri Thaware, Adv. Ruchi Patil, Adv. Shivraj Kunchge, Adv. Arvind Maurya, Adv. Uttara Khaire, Adv. Given Ramtekr and others represented the stand of Dr. Shetty. Civil Application no.72 of 2017 IN Civil Appeal No. 113 of 2014