Court Affirms Wife's Right to Maintenance Despite Alleged Financial Misrepresentation
In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Akul Rastogi against his wife, Shubhangi Rastogi, regarding allegations of perjury in a maintenance case. The court upheld the decision of the Family Court which had previously rejected Akul's application to prosecute Shubhangi for allegedly making false statements about her employment and financial status.
The division bench consisting of Justices Arindam Sinha and Satya Veer Singh ruled on March 17, 2026, that the appeal lacked the necessary cogent evidence to support the husband's claims. Akul Rastogi had contended that his wife falsely claimed to be unemployed and also failed to disclose significant financial resources, including fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) amounting to over Rs. 20 lakhs.
The court emphasized the well-established principle that a husband is obligated to maintain his wife, irrespective of her financial resources. It also highlighted that the FDRs in question were initially deposited by Shubhangi's father and were subsequently encashed to meet her financial needs, thus not negating her right to maintenance.
The bench further pointed out that the burden of proof lay with Akul to demonstrate his wife's employment status, a burden he failed to meet. The court also clarified that suppression of financial details does not automatically equate to making false statements.
The court referred to the Supreme Court's guidelines in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha, emphasizing that financial affidavits filed in maintenance cases must be scrutinized, but the current case did not provide sufficient evidence to admit the appeal.
The appeal was dismissed at the admission stage without requiring notice to the lower court, under Order 41, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The registry has been directed to communicate the dismissal to the Family Court that issued the original judgment.
Bottom Line:
Husband's application for leave to prosecute wife for perjury rejected by Family Court due to lack of cogent evidence demonstrating false statements regarding employment and financial status.
Statutory provision(s): Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order 41, Rule 11; Hindu Law
Akul Rastogi v. Shubhangi Rastogi, (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2875158
