1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

R
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

WRIT PETITION NO.19448 OF 2015 (GM-FC)

BETWEEN:
DR. PRAVEEN R
S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA C
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 176, NHIG
D2 BLOCK, 5TH PHASE
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN
BANGALORE-560064
…PETITIONER
(BY DR.PRAVEEN R, PARTY-IN-PERSON)

AND:

DR ARPITHA
D/O SIDDALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 186, NISARGA
"G" CROSS, 9TH STAGE
NAGARBHAVI
BANGALORE-560072
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. C.H. JADHAV, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 6.2.2015 PASSED IN I.A. VIII IN M.C. NO.
1607/2013 BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE AND PLEASED TO ALLOW THE
APPLICATION OF I.A. VIII M.C. NO. 1607/2013 VIDE ANN-C.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
 2

ORDER

The tone for this judgment may be set by what Shakespeare

said in Richard III about perjury; the relevant stanza runs as

under:

"My conscience hath a thousand several tongues,

And every tongue brings in a several tale,
and ever tale condemns me for a villain.
Perjury, Perjury in the highest degree;
Murther, in the direst degree;
All several sins, all us'd in each degree.
throng to the bar, crying all "Guilty, guilty!."

The following anguish expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Swarna Singh vs. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 668 about

rampant perjury in courts merit a mention:

"Perjury has also become a way of life in the Law Courts.

A trial Judge knows that the witness is telling a lie and is
going back on his previous statement, yet he does not
wish to punish him or even file a complaint against
him..."

2. Facts in brief:

(i) Petitioner & respondent are an estranged couple; both

they are medical practitioners apparently of some standing in the

profession; petitioner-husband has instituted M.C.No.1607/2013

in the Court below seeking a decree for annulment of marriage

with the respondent; that proceeding is pending; respondent had

filed an application u/s. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,

seeking Rs.1,00,000/- as monthly maintenance and for a lump

 3

sum of Rs.75,000/- as litigation expenses; the same having been

rejected vide order dated 06.02.2015, her challenge thereto is

pending in W.P.No.8248/2015.

(ii) Petitioner had filed an application in IA No.8 u/s. 151

of CPC, 1908 r/w Section 301, etc. of Cr.P.C. 1973 requesting the

Court below to initiate proceedings for the offence of perjury

contending that the respondent-wife in her affidavit dated

07.11.2013 supporting the application for maintenance had

falsely stated as to her unemployment & lack of income; learned

judge of the Court below vide order dated 06.02.2015, a copy

whereof is at Annexure-A has rejected the application holding it to

be premature; of course, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to

move such an application subsequently; aggrieved thereby, he is

knocking at the doors of Writ Court.

3. After service of notice, the respondent - wife having

entered appearance through her counsel vehemently opposes the

writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned

order and the reasons on which it has been constructed; learned

Sr. Advocate Mr.C.H.Jhadhav appearing for the respondent

contends that in a complaint filed by the respondent-wife in

relation to petitioner allegedly producing come Tax Returns & other

documents of the respondent, the police are still investigating the

 4

matter and therefore the question of perjury is premature; that

whether in a case of alleging perjury, action needs to be taken or

not, is a matter left to the discretion of the Court concerned before

whom the substantive proceedings are pending and therefore,

discretionary orders of the kind cannot be subjected to a deeper

scrutiny in writ jurisdiction; in support of his case, he banks upon

Apex Court decision in B.K. GUPTA VS. DAMODAR H. BAJAJ AND

ORS., (2001) 9 SCC 742; so contending he seeks dismissal of writ

petition.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and

having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant

a limited indulgence in the matter as under and for the following

reasons:

a) Petitioner's matrimonial cause for annulment of his

marriage with the respondent, is pending before the Court below;

respondent-wife who is a medical practitioner with Post

Graduation, was then doing her 'Doctorate of Medicines' (ie., DM),

is not in dispute; in the narrative affidavit filed by her in support of

application for maintenance, she had claimed to be unemployed &

incomeless; the said application came to be rejected by the Court

below vide order dated 06.02.2015 and the same is put in

challenge; in the said order, the learned trial Judge at para no.13

has observed as under:

 5

"... In the application she has stated that she is

unemployed having no income of her own though she is
having a Degree of Medicine and it is not enough to
procure appropriate employment... A copy of the Income
Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2012-2013 & 2013-
14 pertaining to the respondent is also produced along
with other documents. According to these two Income
Returns, the gross total income of the respondent is
mentioned as Rs.2,62,490/0 and 2,63,240/- respectively
for the said Assessment Years... If these IT Returns are
taken into consideration, the respondent is having income
and she is also earning income... She has not filed any
counter to the objections filed by the petitioner and also
with respect to these IT Returns. In fact, by filing a
complaint she has admitted that she has filed Income Tax
Returns... Under such circumstances, she has
suppressed the fact that she was earning income..."

Thus there is a specific finding as to falsity of statement made on

oath by the respondent.

(b) Even before this Court, it is not the case of respondent

that the copies of Income Tax Returns produced by the petitioner

for opposing the claim for maintenance, do not pertain to her or

that their contents are untrue/incorrect; when the Court below

has recorded a specific finding as to the income of the respondent

from the medical profession that too on the basis of undisputed IT

Returns for the relevant period; when it has also recorded a

specific finding that the respondent has suppressed the fact that

she was earning income; that being the position, the application of

petitioner for initiating action for the offence of perjury, could not

have been turned down as being premature merely because main

matter is still pending; consideration of such an application has

 6

nothing to do with the outcome of the main matter at all. The Apex

Court in Mahila Vinod Kumari vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,

(2008) 8 SCC 34 has observed as under:

"... The evil of perjury has assumed alarming proportions

in cases depending on oral evidence and in order to deal
with the menace effectively, it is desirable for the Courts
to use the provision more effectively and frequently, than
it is presently done..."

The inner voice of this decision appears to have fallen on the deaf

ears of the learned Judge of the court below.

c) The vehement contention of Mr. Jhadhav, learned Sr.

Adv. that a Police investigation is launched against the petitioner-

husband for producing copies of IT Returns and other documents

of the respondent and therefore, till after its completion, no action

for the commission of alleged perjury can be initiated, is bit

difficult to countenance, more particularly, when the authenticity

of these documents is not disputed even before this Court; in fact

the Court below too has recorded a specific finding to this effect;

the said Police investigation has nothing to do with perjury

allegedly committed by the respondent; 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.
 7

d) Under the Indian Penal Code, offences relating to false

evidence and against administration of justice are dealt with in

Chapter XI; Lord Macaulay as the first Chairman of Law

Commission of India in his report has stated:

"Giving of false evidence must always be a grave

offence. But few points in penal legislation seems to us
clearer than that the law ought to make a distinction
between that kind of false evidence which produces
great evils and that kind of false evidence which
produces comparatively slight evils.... As the ordinary
punishment for false evidence, we propose
imprisonment for a term of not more than seven years,
nor less than one year...".

The Privy Council about a century ago had criticized that perjury

was being committed in Indian Courts day in & day out; the Apex

Court too echoed the same concern in Re Suo moto Proceedings

(2001) 5 SCC 289, by making the following observations:

"The Courts are ... expected to do justice quickly ...

Justice dispensation system would be wrecked if
statutory restrictions are not imposed upon the litigants,
who attempt to mislead the Court by filing and relying
upon the false evidence particularly in cases, the
adjudication of which is depended upon the statement
of facts... the purity of proceedings of the Court cannot
be permitted to be sullied by a party on ...relying upon
false evidence inspired by extraneous considerations or
revengeful desire to harass or spite his opponent.
Sanctity of the affidavits has to be preserved and
protected discouraging the filing of irresponsible
statements, without any regard to accuracy...

In India law relating to the offence of perjury is

given a statutory definition u/s.191 and Chapter XI of
the Indian Penal Code... The offences incorporated
under this Chapter are based upon recognition of the
decline of moral values and erosion of sanctity of oath.
 8

Unscrupulous litigants are found daily resorting to utter

blatant falsehood in the courts which has to some
extent resulted in polluting the judicial system...
Effective and stern action is required to be taken for
preventing the evil of perjury ... The mere existence of
the penal provisions to deal with perjury would be a
cruel joke with the society unless the courts stop to take
an evasive recourse despite proof of the commission of
the offence under Chapter XI... If the system is to
service, effective action is the need of the time ...".

That being the position, the learned trial Judge ought to have

considered petitioner's subject application with due seriousness

and at the earliest point of time, there being no justification for

deferring its consideration since it touched purity of judicial

proceedings.

e) Lastly, heavy reliance placed by Mr. Jhadhav on the

decision of Apex Court in V.K.Gupta's case supra, does not much

come to his rescue; there are some observations in the said ruling

that recognize greater degree of discretion with the Courts in

deciding application of the kind, is true; however, that cannot be

construed as a discretion of the Moguls; the sages of law like Lord

Halsbury have said that discretion means according to rules of

reason & justice; 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

 9

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.

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.

All contentions are kept open.

Costs made easy.

Sd/-
JUDGE

MDS