***

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. –

Seeking initiation of prosecution against respondent No.1 for commission of offences under Sections 191 and 193 IPC (Now Sections 227, 229 of BNS, 2023) for giving false information in para 13 of the application i.e. CRM-24069-2024 in CRR-1015-2013, the petitioner has come up before this Court under Section 379 read with Section 528 of BNSS, 2023

2. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the pleadings to ascertain whether the case is worth issuing notice or not and its analysis would lead to the following outcome.

3. The petitioner is husband of respondent No.1-Neelam Rani. The respondent No.1 had filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC for maintenance and in the said petition, the maintenance was assessed by the trial Court at Rs.1,000/- per month for her and Rs.500/- each for her two children per month (Total Rs.2,000/- per month) vide order dated 06.03.2013 Annexure P-3. Later on, the maintenance was enhanced to Rs.3,000/- per month i.e. Rs.1,000/- for wife and Rs.1,000/- each for two children.

4. The petitioner’s grievance is that respondent No.1 is gainfully employed and the details of the same are mentioned in para 9 of the petition. The petitioner’s another grievance is that respondent No.1 had filed an application i.e. CRM-24069-2024 in CRR-1015-2013 and has referred to para 13 of the said application, which reads as follows:

“13. That money is required for the higher education of the children as the present respondent/wife has no source of income and is totally depend upon her old age parents who are already on mercy of God. The petitioner/husband being legally bound may kindly be directed to fulfil his legal duty to maintain the respondents.”

5. The petitioner’s next grievance is that respondent No.1 had mentioned in the aforesaid paragraph of application that she has no source of income which is contrary to the truth and she was working, detailed of which is mentioned in para 9 of the present petition. Thus, the petitioner seeks launch of prosecution against her.

6. I have gone through the petition. Although the petitioner has mentioned some details about the past employment of respondent No.1 but it cannot be ascertained that at the time of filing of the application i.e. CRM-24069-2024, respondent No.1 was still gainfully employed. What was required to be proved was that at the time of swearing the affidavit, respondent No.1 was not gainfully employed. Petitioner refer proof to prove that she was gainful employee from Annexures P-9 to P-16, however, perusal of the same reflects that they relates to the period commencing from 05.04.2013 to 17.05.2024, however, duly sworn affidavit was filed on 27.05.2024. Her past employment would not come in the way of said affidavit. It appears that the matrimonial discord has taken overturn and now even the petitioner’s husband wants from this Court to take penal action against his wife for giving an affidavit about not gainfully employed. As mentioned above, there is no averment that as on the date of filing of the affidavit, respondent No.1 was gainfully employed. Thus, the burden was on the petitioner to prove the said fact that on the date of giving of the affidavit, respondent No.1 was a gainful employee which is not proved, as such, it is not a case worth issuing notice and the present petition is dismissed. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Petition dismissed.

********