Read Time: 07 minutes

If complaints pertaining to perjury are delayed, then there is all possibility of the fountain of justice being polluted, averred the Karnataka High Court.

Justice Krishna S Dixit of the Karnataka High Court observed that complaints related to perjury must be dealt with immediately so that it sends a strong message to those persons who may indulge in such activities.

"...the reason assigned by the Court below for holding petitioner's subject application to be premature, is unsustainable to say the least; the view of the learned trial Judge that petitioner can move similar application subsequently offends sense of justice; applications of the kind need to be considered on merits at the earliest point of time so that a loud message goes to the unscrupulous section of the litigant public as to what would befall the perjuring parties."

Justice Dixit of the High Court further opined,

"Act of perjury is treated as a heinous offence in all civilized societies; consideration of complaints with regard to the same cannot be deferred or delayed; otherwise there is all possibility of the fountain of justice being polluted."

These observations were passed by the Court while hearing a plea moved by a person seeking to initiate perjury proceedings against his estranged wife.

The husband, the petitioner in the present matter and the wife, who is the respondent (both medical practitioners) were seeking a decree for annulment of their marriage.

While the proceedings were pending, the respondent filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking ₹1,00,000 as monthly maintenance.

Subsequently, this application was rejected by the trial court, pursuant to which the respondent moved the High Court by way of an appeal.

Notably, this petition is pending.

The husband then proceeded to file a petition seeking to initiate proceedings for the offence of perjury against the respondent-wife, claiming that she had sought for maintenance while falsely contending that she was unemployed and had no income.

Opining that the respondent had the liberty to the application seeking maintenance, the Subordinate Court rejected the plea, holding the same to be premature.

This prompted the petitioner to knock the doors of the Writ Court.

After going through the factual matrix and arguments raised, Justice Dixit went through the order of the Trial Court declining to entertain the application for maintenance.

The lower court had rejected the respondent's claim for maintenance after going through her Income Tax returns and considering the fact that she was a postgraduate in medicine, the High Court observed.

In this regard, the Court opined,

"Thus there is a specific finding as to falsity of statement made on oath by the respondent".

The Single Judge was further of the view that the application to initiate perjury proceedings against the respondent could not have been turned down by the subordinate court.

After relying on the Apex Court decision in the case of Mahila Vinod Kumari vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, the High Court also criticized the subordinate court for refusing to take action.

"The inner voice of this decision appears to have fallen on the deaf ears of the learned Judge of the court below."

Another judgement passed by the Top Court namely, Swarna Singh vs. State of Punjab also found a mention in the High Court’s judgement.

While allowing the plea, the Court said,

“In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; impugned order is set at naught; matter is remitted for consideration afresh; till such consideration takes place, the main matter shall be parked at a bay.”

 

Case Title: Dr Praveen v. Arpitha and ors

Access Copy of Judgment Here