The Gujarat High Court judgment in Sejalben Tejasbhai Chovatiya vs State establishes that litigants who file false affidavits and conceal material income in matrimonial maintenance claims face criminal prosecution for perjury. Delivered by Justice Sonia Gokani on October 20, 2016, in Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No. 7666 of 2016, the decision reinforces the absolute sanctity of sworn statements in judicial proceedings.
Suppression of Financial Resources in Maintenance Claims
The applicant, Sejalben Tejasbhai Chovatiya, initiated maintenance proceedings against her husband before the Family Court at Rajkot under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In her formal petition and supporting sworn affidavit, she asserted that she was entirely dependent, had no independent occupation or income, and remained unable to maintain herself. On this factual foundation, she claimed substantial monthly maintenance allowances from her respondent husband.
During the proceedings, the husband contested the claims and produced documentary evidence showing that the applicant was actively employed, received a regular monthly salary from a commercial enterprise, and had previously received substantial financial settlements from a prior marriage. The husband subsequently filed an application under Section 340 read with Section 195 of the CrPC, urging the Family Court to prosecute the wife for committing perjury under Sections 191, 192, and 193 of the Indian Penal Code by submitting deliberately false evidence under oath.
Family Court Order and the High Court Quashing Petition
After reviewing the documentary evidence and finding a prima facie case of intentional falsehood, the Family Court at Rajkot directed its Registrar to lodge a formal criminal complaint against the wife before the competent judicial magistrate. Aggrieved by this direction, the applicant approached the High Court of Gujarat under Section 482 of the CrPC and Article 227 of the Constitution, seeking the complete quashing of the perjury inquiry and subsequent criminal complaint.
Justice Sonia Gokani thoroughly examined the records to determine whether the Family Court committed any jurisdictional error or procedural excess. The High Court observed that the statutory machinery of Section 125 CrPC serves as social welfare legislation designed to protect genuinely destitute spouses and children. When a claimant deliberately suppresses lucrative employment or substantial financial assets, such conduct subverts the foundational purpose of welfare laws. This scrutiny reflects strict standards applied in criminal revision standards in Allahabad High Court, where courts refuse to shield individuals who abuse judicial processes through deceptive pleadings.
Statutory Mechanics of Section 340 Inquiries and Perjury Offences
Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides a precise statutory procedure for dealing with offences affecting the administration of justice. When an application is made or a court forms an opinion that an offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 appears to have been committed in relation to a proceeding, the court may hold a preliminary inquiry and record a finding to that effect.
The purpose of the preliminary inquiry is not to determine final guilt, but to ascertain whether it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in Section 195. Justice Gokani noted that perjury under Section 191 of the IPC occurs when a person legally bound by an oath or express provision of law to state the truth makes any statement which is false, and which they either know or believe to be false or do not believe to be true. Punishments prescribed under Section 193 of the IPC ensure that false statements in judicial proceedings carry severe criminal penalties.
Mandatory Asset and Liability Disclosure Standards
Courts have increasingly codified detailed disclosure requirements in matrimonial proceedings to eliminate fraudulent maintenance claims. Litigants are legally required to file detailed affidavits specifying every income stream, bank account, movable asset, and real estate holding. Full financial transparency enables family courts to determine maintenance awards equitably, ensuring that awards reflect real financial capabilities and genuine dependency.
When a party intentionally conceals employment records, corporate partnerships, or substantial alimony settlements received in previous proceedings, such omissions constitute deliberate deception rather than inadvertent drafting oversights. Justice Gokani stressed that family courts must enforce sworn disclosure obligations strictly to prevent welfare legislation from becoming an instrument of extortion or illicit financial gain.
Repercussions for Legal Representation in Matrimonial Disputes
The ruling establishes significant obligations for advocates representing parties in maintenance proceedings. Legal counsel must advise clients about the severe consequences of signing misleading affidavits or withholding material financial records. When lawyers ensure that pleadings accurately reflect real asset positions, they protect both their clients from criminal exposure and the court system from wasteful interlocutory litigation.
Judicial Integrity and Prosecution for False Evidence
The judgment emphasizes that judicial proceedings depend fundamentally on truthful disclosures by litigating parties. When individuals take solemn oaths before courts of record and knowingly make false statements to secure financial decrees, courts cannot remain passive spectators. Protecting the administration of justice against fraud is an essential public duty.
Justice Gokani held that Section 340 of the CrPC exists precisely to preserve public confidence in the judicial process by punishing those who corrupt court records through fabricated claims. Litigants who practice deception cannot claim immunity under the guise of matrimonial distress. The principle mirrors rigorous accountability expected in commercial litigation and affidavit standards in Gujarat, where truthfulness on oath remains an unyielding prerequisite across all categories of legal disputes.
Key Holdings and Legal Consequences of Perjury
Dismissing the Gujarat High Court quashing petition, Justice Gokani affirmed the Family Court order and sanctioned the criminal prosecution for false evidence in court:
- Filing false affidavits to claim interim or final financial relief constitutes an intentional offence of perjury in maintenance proceedings under the Indian Penal Code.
- A Section 340 CrPC false affidavit inquiry is fully warranted whenever a litigant intentionally conceals existing employment, business earnings, or substantial capital resources.
- Section 125 CrPC maintenance suppression of income cannot be condoned as harmless advocacy; it represents a direct assault on judicial integrity.
- Family courts possess the statutory mandate and moral obligation to initiate perjury complaints to deter deceptive practices in matrimonial litigation.
Guidance for Matrimonial Litigants and Legal Counsel
The Sejalben Tejasbhai Chovatiya ruling stands as a stern warning against making fraudulent assertions in family law disputes. Litigants must disclose their complete financial assets, liabilities, and income sources transparently in sworn pleadings. By upholding criminal prosecution against false maintenance claims, the Gujarat High Court reinforced the principle that justice can only be administered when truthfulness is rigorously enforced in every court of law.