In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court declined to entertain an appeal filed by a husband seeking permission to prosecute his wife for allegedly making false statements in a maintenance dispute. The court found no merit in the claims at the admission stage itself.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from a Family Court order dated February 6, 2026, which rejected the husband’s application for leave to initiate perjury proceedings against his wife. The husband alleged that his wife had misrepresented her financial status while claiming maintenance.
Read also:- Foreign Arbitral Award Gets Green Signal: Supreme Court Rejects Promoters’ Challenge
According to his counsel, the wife had stated she was unemployed, whereas she was allegedly working. It was also argued that she had failed to disclose fixed deposits exceeding ₹20 lakh in her name, some of which had later been encashed.
Hearing the matter, the bench noted that the obligation of a husband to maintain his wife is well established in law, especially when spouses are living separately.
The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the person making the allegation.
“She, saying she is not employed, cannot be compelled to prove the negative. Onus was on the applicant to show she is in employment,” the bench observed.
Read also:- Andhra Pradesh HC Clarifies Inheritance Law: Husband Has No Right Over Wife’s Parental Property
On the issue of fixed deposits, the court noted that the funds had been created by the wife’s father, who has no legal obligation to maintain her after marriage. The court also took note of the husband’s own submission that most of the deposits had already been encashed, leaving only around ₹4 lakh.
This, the court said, reflected the wife’s need for financial support rather than any attempt to conceal assets.
Further, the bench clarified that mere “suppression” of certain details cannot automatically be treated as a false statement unless supported by clear evidence.
Read also:- Allahabad High Court Drops Criminal Contempt Case After Advocate’s Unconditional Apology in Open Court
Invoking its powers under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court dismissed the appeal at the admission stage itself, without issuing notice to the lower court.
The bench concluded that no cogent material had been presented to justify proceeding against the wife for perjury. The registry was directed to communicate the dismissal to the Family Court.
Case Details
Case Title: Akul Rastogi vs Shubhangi Rastogi
Case Number: First Appeal Defective No. 212 of 2026
Judge: Justice Arindam Sinha, Justice Satya Veer Singh
Decision Date: March 17, 2026
