Allahabad HC ruled that the maintenance application U/Sec 125 CrPC cannot be decided pending Sec 340 CrPC Application.

The Court was dealing with the criminal revision challenging the judgment and order passed by the Family Court by which the application filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed and revisionist was directed to pay maintenance @ Rs. 5,000/- per month.

In this case, the opposite party no.2 has filed a false affidavit disclosing herself as a housewife whereas she is working as a Physiotherapist in a Hospital.

The revisionist had moved an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to initiate appropriate proceedings against the opposite party no.2 for giving a false affidavit before the Court.

This fact has been brought before the Family Court where the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was pending.

Revisionist submitted that the Family Court without deciding the application filed by the revisionist under Section 340 Cr.P.C. has proceeded with the case and decided the application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and maintenance has been awarded on relying the false affidavit filed by opposite party no.2.

Learned counsel for the revisionist further placed reliance on the judgement dated 09.01.2003 passed by Allahabad High Court where it was stated that “if any application is moved in the pending case bringing to the notice of the court that any false evidence knowing well has been filed or fabricated in such proceedings, the court should dispose of the said application first before proceeding any further or before recording of further evidence.”

In view of the above, the bench allowed the criminal revision.