Hi,
Brief Facts:
The wife filed for maintenance U/s 152 Cr.P.C. in 2008 and was awarded 4000 P.M (2000 each for herself and minor daughter) from the date of filling.
In 2011 husband filed for divorce U/s 13 HMA. (Mantel cruelty). On this wife filed application U/s 24 HMA for maintenance.
On 25/2/2012 Wife gave evidence by way of affidavit in her evidence for Cr.P.C 125 stating “ I have no menace of earning and I am living at the mercy of my parents.” The same is also mentioned in the application U/s 24 HMA.
Recently the husband discovered that she was actually working all this while, especially on the dates on which the affidavits are filled in both the aforementioned courts.
Luckily her cross examination was differed all this while and in her cross examination, on 8th August 2013 she accepted the suggestion that she was working from June 2011 till Feb 2013.
It’s a matter of record that she has furnished false affidavits which itself is an offence punishable U/s 193 IPS along with the provisions of Sec-195 and 340 Cr.P.C. of course.
The next hearing is to decide the application U/s 24 HMA for maintenance.
Here are the questions?
1. What should be the next course of action from the Husband? (Keeping in view that the first objective is to stop the court from fixing maintenance U/s 24 HMA which will obviously be much higher than the 4000 PM granted by the other court)
2. It is evident that she was working and has filed false affidavit but she is again without a job (to the knowledge of the husband at least). What would be most appropriate argument against her application for maintenance:
Those I can think of are-
A. Applicant did not come to the court with clean hands. False statement and concealment of facts.
B. Filled false affidavit.
C. Capable of earning.
Another argument which I can think of is that she cannot claim that she is again unemployed as she is estopped by her own act and conduct. [Sec 115 Evidence Act].
Please help with your valuable suggestions. Also if someone could provide help full legal citations (case laws).
Regards,
Mukesh Deswal
