Written statement in 340 CrPC

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL FAMILY JUDGE AT TUMKUR

Crl Mis No. 30/2023

Between

M.R.V          ————–  Petitioner

And

A.G                ————– Respondent

 

The petitioner begs to file the following Written Arguments as part of final arguments in Crl Mis No.30/2023 which is filed under sec 340 Cr.P.C as follows:

  1. It is submitted that, the respondent in Serial No.3 of Part 1 of Affidavit of Assets, Income and Expenditure filed by Deponent (Income Affidavit) in case no. 143/2021 of Family Court, she has mentioned just “Tumkur”, as her residential address. Even in her evidence statement and cross examination of RW1, she hasn’t disclosed her full residential address, which is mandated by the Supreme court judgement in Criminal Appeal no.730/2020 on 4Th November 2020 in Rajneesh Vs Neha &Anr.

 

  1. It is submitted that, although the respondent is changing her residential address frequently, she is deliberately not disclosing her address in order to keep the petitioner in dark about the wrong doings and atrocities that she is doing on the child, which has been flagged time and again by petitioner and Circle Inspector of Tumkur, has also issued 2 warning notices.

 

  1. It is submitted that, the respondent in Serial No.4 of Part 1 of income affidavit, she has mentioned that she doesn’t have an email address. But, as per her last 4 years IT returns which is filed “SELF” by herself without the help of an auditor(AY 2018-19, 2019-20,2020-21,2022-23), she has used the email address zzzz@gmail.com. The respondent is hiding this email id from court, because her email exchanges with the petitioner in year 2019 have been submitted to court as exhibits of evidence in G&WC 14/2019.

 

  1. It is submitted that, the respondent in her reply to the Hon’ble Upa-Lokayuktha on 02/05/2023 in complaint no:-UPLOK/BD/1803/2023, in the mandatory service details section, she has given her email id as yyyyy@gmail.com her personal email id along with another office email id.

 

  1. It is submitted that, the respondent in serial no. 11 of Part 1 of income affidavit has stated that, she is not assessed under Income tax. But in her response to Hon’ble Upa-Lokayuktha on 02/05/2023, she has accepted the fact that, her income accessed under Income tax and she has filed Income Tax Returns for AY 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2022-23. Also it can be seen that, an income tax of amount of INR 1,327/- in AY 2019-20 and INR 2,221/- for AY 2022-23 has been calculated and a rebate for the same amount is provided u/s 87A of IT act. Also ITR of AY 2021-22 is not submitted to Lokayukta also, which needs to be investigated further.
  2. It is submitted that, information under RTI from IT department about respondent’s income says,
Assessment Year Taxable Income
2018-19 Rs.1,81,980/-
2019-20 Rs.2,76,540/-
2020-21 Rs.2,45,390/-
2021-22 Return Not Filed
2022-23 Rs. 2,94,410/-
2023-24 Rs.3,70,200/-

 

  1. It is submitted that, the respondent being a University Rank Holder & Master of Commerce(MCom) post graduate, having work experience in Chartered accountant’s office, has answered like an innocent/naive person who is alien to these tax terms in her Cross examination of RW1, in an effort to evade from probable punishment under section 340 of Cr.P.C.

 

  1. It is submitted that, the respondent who is well versed with Tax terms, in serial no 77 of part 8, has declared that, she doesn’t have any debit/credit card. But after filing application under section 340 Cr.P.C application, she has 2 debit cards. That the respondent in her cross examination, she has admitted that she has debit cards with her, but she confused herself between credit and debit card and since she doesn’t have a credit card, she mentioned “Nill” in credit/debit card section of Income affidavit.

 

  1. It is submitted that, the fact that the respondent herself has done Self-filing of ITR for 4 years, through a Verification clause, which says, “I GOPAL ARUNA daughter of, GIRIYAPPA GOPAL, solemnlydeclare to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information given in the return is correct and complete and is in accordance with the provisions of the Income-Tax Act 1961. I further declare that I am making this return in my capacity as Self and I am competent to make this return and verify it. I am holding a permanent account number BMIPA5145H.” Submitted with Electronic Verification Code generated through Aadhaar OTP mode.

 

  1. It is submitted that, in serial no.14 of part 1 of income affidavit filed on 17.09.2022, the respondent has stated that she needs Rs. 35,000/- per month as maintenance. In the serial no 38 of Part 3 of income affidavit she has failed to give the mandatory breakup for Rs. 35,000/-. The respondent couldn’t substantiate her monthly expenses of Rs. 35,000/- on child in her cross examination also. This clearly shows that; the respondent doesn’t really have an expenditure of Rs. 35,000/- per month on a 3-year-old child and she is only trying to exploit the petitioner through her unrealistic claims of her maintenance application in court.

 

  1. It is submitted that, In the HMA affidavit in para no.4, she claims that, she has to maintain her entire familyof 6 members on her meagre salary alone. In para no.3 of the same affidavit, she has described her family includes, herself, her 2 ½ year son, her mother, her brother and 2 sisters (total 5 dependents). After the petitioner raised the fact that, the respondents mother is a pensioner and her sisters are married and stays in their respective husband’s home in the petitioner’s objections to HMA affidavit on 08.09.2022, the respondent has accepted that she has only 3 dependents instead of 5 in her income affidavit filed on 17.09.2023 in serial no. 17 of part 1.

 

  1. It is submitted that, the respondent in her objections filed to 340 Cr.P.C application on 23.01.2023, has again gone back to defend her stand on the depends as per her first affidavit along with HMA application and in para 7 of her objections, she has defended that, she has 5 dependents.

 

  1. It is submitted that, the respondent in serial no.16 of part 1 of income affidavit filed on 17.09.2022, has just mentioned that she stays with her mother and her mother is a pensioner. But the respondent has not mentioned her mother’s income as desired in the affidavit question. Even though the respondents mother is receiving a pension which is around Rs. 25,000/- per month, the respondent is not disclosing the exact pension amount, income of her mother from other sources like Rent from 3 houses in sira town, agricultural land etc and still showing 3 dependents in her income affidavit serial no.17. The respondent has not given clear answers on the questions related to the number of dependents in the cross examination of RW1, in an effort to confuse and misguide the hon’ble court.

 

  1. It is submitted that, in serial no.21 of part 1 of income affidavit, the respondent with her negligent behavior towards court has not mentioned all the cases that are pending litigation between the parties and the difference between the number of cases listed by respondent and petitioner in their respective income affidavits.
  2. It is submitted that, in serial no.28 of part 2 of income affidavit, the respondent has mentioned that, the petitioner has a turnover of over Rs.20 crores per annum in his Proprietary firm namely Nature Best Health Supplement, but has failed to attach any sort of documentary evidence. When the respondent was questioned in cross examination in this regard, she has again failed to substantiate her claim. This is a clearly a case of blatant lie with respect to income of other spouse in maintenance proceedings under HMA.

 

  1. It is submitted that, the respondent in her HMA affidavit has stated that, the petitioner has filed an income tax of Rs.18,00,000/- (Eighteen lac) in the AY 2020-21, whereas the petitioner has filed an Income tax of Rs. 37,485/- for the AY 2020-21 and Rs.1,12,236/- income tax for AY 2021-22. The respondent has failed to give any proof for her claims, whereas the petitioner has attached his turnover certificate for last 3 years, his ITR for the AY 2020-21 and AY 2021-22 as exhibits 3, 4 and 5 of his evidence. This is also another blatant lie to extort more money in the form of maintenance by willfully misguiding the court through false affidavit.

 

  1. It is submitted that, the respondent has stated in para 6 of her HMA affidavit that, the petitioner has agricultural lands, commercial buildings, coconut farm, arecanut farm, tractor etc and earns crores of money per annum, but being a duty bound husband and father of our child, has not spent a single pie for the welfare and wellbeing of respondent and her child. But, the fact is that, the respondent denied taking any help or money directly from petitioner during her meetings in child visitation center. Money orders worth of Rs.3000/-, Rs.5000/- and Rs.5000/- sent through Indian Post office has been rejected by the respondent and the documents for the same are produced before this Hon’ble court and the same is marked as EX-P-25.

 

  1. It is submitted that, in serial no. 30 (6) of part 2 of income affidavit, the respondent has mentioned that the petitioner has 10-acre land in Sy No. 46/1 in Hoovinahole Village, Hiryuru taluk, Chitradurga district, but not attached any supportive document like RTC. Apart from this land, for all other 16 other property descriptions, she has filed the land documents, most of which are ancestral properties existing in the name of petitioner’s father. When questioned in the cross examination of RW1, she has failed to answer why she has mentioned it and failed to provide any document for it.

 

  1. It is submitted that, in serial no. 36 of part 3 of income affidavit, the respondent has claimed an expenditure of Rs.3,00,000/- (Three lac) and in serial no. 85 of part 8, she has claimed that she has made and expenditure of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten lac) and has claimed Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lac) as litigation expenses in her HMA affidavit in the MC case no.143/2021. But, she has neither shown source of income nor any loan for this 18 lac expenditure.

 

  1. It is submitted that, in serial no.45 of part 4 of income affidavit, the respondent has declared her monthly income of Rs. 42,263/- and has declared a monthly expenditure of Rs. 82,300/- in serial no. 60 of the same affidavit. This shows that there is a deficit of Rs. 40,037/- every month. In such scenario, even without taking any loan, her expenditure of Rs.18,00,000/- (18 lac) looks extremely doubtful.

 

  1. It is submitted that, in serial no. 38 of part 3 of income affidavit, the respondent has failed to give breakup of expenditure, but in the OTHERS section, she has simply mentioned Rs. 35,000/-. Also in the cross examination of RW1, she has stated that, the child doesn’t go to school or tuition, but for food and clothing of a 3-year old child, her claim of spending Rs. 35,000/- per month, which is more than her take home salary is highly doubtful.

 

  1. It is submitted that, in serial no. 47(i) of part 5 of income affidavit, the respondent has claimed about, Rs. 10,000/- for Groceries/Food Items/clothing and Rs. 9,100/- in serial no. 46(i) of part 5 as Monthly Housing rent, in which her pensioner mother and brother also lives, but has failed to give any receipts for the same. The same was also questioned in cross examination of RW1 and she admitted to the fact that, she has not presented either the rental agreement or rent payment receipts but has simply claimed it. Apart from this Rs.Ten thousand expense on food, she has claimed Rs.Thirty-five thousand monthly expenses on child which is out of proportion.

 

  1. It is submitted that, in serial no. 63 of part 6 of income affidavit, the respondent has disclosed only one account in SBI bank and has admitted to having one more account number in Karnataka Bank, Batawadi Branch, Tumkur. The balance in SBI bank with account no. 64182647340 is shown as only Rs.500/- as on 17.09.2022, but a minimum balance of around Rs.3000/- needs to be maintained as per bank rules. Also the fact that, she has not attached the last 3-year bank account statement as mandated in serial no.7 of part B of Part 9 of income affidavit, makes it more doubtful and an investigation is needed to check the active status and balance in both the SBI and Karnataka Bank accounts.

 

  1. It is submitted that, in serial no.63 of income affidavit, she had to disclose all the current, savings and demat accounts, but as per her admission she has hidden one account and she might have hidden many more details, which needs further investigation.

 

  1. It is submitted that, the fact that, the respondent has intentionally skipped part A of part 9 of income affidavit, which deals with documents related to personal information from Serial no.1 to 6, where her PAN card and Aadhar Card etc details are skipped, gives more boost to the suspicion that, she might have many more bank accounts and investments in her name, which would be traced through her PAN and Aadhar. Hence there is a need for detailed investigation on this matter also.

 

  1. It is submitted that, in serial no. 7, 8 and 9 of part B of part 9 of income affidavit, the details like, Appointment letter along with salary structure at time of appointment, last salary slip, Income tax returns and last 3-year account statement of all bank accounts had to be furnished. But the respondent has intentionally skipped the entire Part 7 and part 9 of income affidavit.

 

  1. It is submitted that, in serial no. 14, of part C of part 9 of income affidavit, the respondent has not provided any documents related to expenditure as all her exaggerated claims of expenditure looks to be fake and misleading.

 

  1. It is submitted that, the respondent in her objections filed to application of 340 Cr.P.C  on 23.01.2023 has stated that, part 7 and part 9 of the affidavit has been left out because of printing error and oversight. But, if we look at her affidavit, after part 6, part 8 has continued in the middle of the page and serial number is continued from 70 ending part 6 and serial no.71 starting part 8.  If at all it was a genuine printing error, then part 8 should have started from serial no. 74.

(Part 7 is Statement of Liabilities from serial no.71 to 73)

  1. It is submitted that, after part 8, Part 9 which further has part A (Personal information documents), part B (Income, asset and liability documents) and part C (Expenditure related documents) is skipped intentionally and immediately after part 8, skipping entire part 9, the Declaration and Verification has come at the middle of page. This clearly shows that, the respondent has intentionally left out the part 7 and 9 and given false affidavit.
  2. It is submitted that, apart from missing part 7 and part 9, in other parts also she has given lot of misinformation and no-information, which needs to be investigated. In an effort to escape from the 340 Cr.P.C proceedings, the respondent has filed a “not press” memo to her HMA application.

 

  1. It is submitted that, although respondent had almost 1-year time to file the so called missing parts of affidavit, the respondent with an intention to mislead the court, has not filed the missing parts of affidavit till date. The same is also admitted by the respondent during the cross examination of RW1.

 

  1. It is submitted that, the respondent’s intention is only to hide her family income sources and her personal documents that can disclose her actual income like, PAN, AADHAR, Statement of Bank accounts, IT Returns, Salary Slips, Documents/receipts related to expenditure. She has put her best efforts to exaggerate her expenses and exaggerate petitioner’s income and with an intention to wrongfully gain more maintenance from the petitioner by misleading the hon’ble Court.

 

  1. It is submitted that, Hon’ble High court of Karnataka in its order in WP no. 19448 of 2015(GM-FC) Dr. Praveen R v/s Dr. Arpitha, in its judgment on 31.8.2021 has stated that, “Act of Perjury is treated as a Heinous offence in all civilized societies”, delay is consideration of such complaints can pollute the fountain of justice. In the said case, the wife had claimed maintenance from husband by hiding her last 2-year Income tax returns and claiming that she doesn’t have any income.
  2. It is submitted that, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in its decision in CRR-457-2022 in Smt.Ritu @ Ridima v/s Sandeep singhsangwan on 15.01.2022 has stated that, “The practice of making false assertions in the court ought to be discouraged because the dignity and sanctity of the court is undermined by such conduct of a party to a lis”. In this case wife Smt.Ritu had challenged the order of Court of Additional Principal Judge (Family Court) Ambala, which had ordered that it would be expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made against the petitioner (Wife) into an offence under section 191 IPC Punishable under section 193 and a separate complaint in this regard was ordered to be sent to the court of learned CJM, Ambala. The wife had concealed the information in her maintenance application affidavit that, she had no income despite being working as an Assistant Professor in Chitkara University, Rajpura on a monthly salary of Rs.28,000/-.

 

  1. It is submitted that, in the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, Hon’ble Justice Sonia Gokani in Spl.Crl. application (Quashing) no.7666 of 2016 has said that, “Laws which are otherwise in favor of the distressed wife when sought to be misused by declaring completely incorrect facts and also by suppressing the material aspect, the trail court at the time of considering the case found that the impact on the administration of justice would make it expedient for it to direct the prosecution” on 20.10.2016 and dismissed the quashing application.

 

  1. It is submitted that in the hon’ble high court of Karanataka in Writ petition no.13928 and 13929 of 1997 A.Hiriyanna Gowda and Another Versus State of Karnataka and others on 02.07.1998 laid down that, It has unfortunately become the order of the day, false statements to be made in the course of judicial proceedings even on oath and attempts made to substantiate this false statements through affidavits or fabricated documents. It is very sad when this happens because the real backbone of judicial system is based on the element of trust and confidence of statement on oath. So the court of firm view that in the interest of purity of working of courts it is absolutely essential to take such corrective action whenever instants of false affidavit arises while addressing the writ petition challenging an application filed under section 340 of Cr.P.C.

 

  1. It is submitted that, all the High Courts are of the similar view with respect to Sec 340 Cr.P.C and Sec 193 and 195 of IPC which deals with false affidavits and false evidence.

 

WHEREFORE, the petitioner prays that, since there is a intentional violation of the  Supreme court guidelines laid down in the in Criminal Appeal NO.730/2020 in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another on 04.11.2020 case  by the respondent, the petitioner humbly prays that the hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to refer the  same to the jurisdiction magistrate to proceed in accordance with law, in the interest of justice.

 

 

 

Advocate for petitioner                              Petitioner

 

Tumkur

 

Date:

 

 

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL FAMILY JUDGE AT TUMKUR

Crl Mis. No. 30/2023

Between

M.R.V ————–   Petitioner

And

A.G                ————– Respondent

MEMO

The under signed advocate appearing for petitioner herewith produce the citation to the above said case, in the interest of justice.

 

  1. Hon’ble Supreme court judgment in Crl Appeal no. 730 of 2020, Rajnesh V/s Neha &Anr on 04.11.2020.

 

  1. Supreme court of India in Criminal Appeal no.5102 of 2020 Bhima Razu Prasad Vs. State represented by Deputy superintendent of Police, CBI.

 

  1. Hon’ble High court of Karnataka in WP No.13928 and 13929 of 1997, Hiriyanna gowda and another Vs. State of Karnataka
  2. Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CRR-457-2022, SmtRitu@ Ridhima&Anr V/s Sandeep Singh Sangwan on 15.03.2022

 

  1. Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in Special Criminal Application(Quashing) 7666 of 2016, Sejalben TejasbhaiChovatiya V/s State of Gujrat  on 20.10.2016

 

  1. Hon’ble High court of Karnataka in WP No.19448/2015, Dr.Praveen Vs. Dr.Arpita
  2. 2003 (1) KCCR 428, A.N. Shivaprasad Vs. T.Venkatesh

 

  1. WP No.(M/S) of 2002 Syed Nazim Husain Vs. Addl Principal Family court and another at High court of Allahabad, Lucknow bench.

 

  1. WP No.14039 of 2017 Union of India Vs. Mr.Haresh B Milani and another in High court of Bombay.

                            

Tumkur                                             Advocate for petitioner          

Date:

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

error: Content is protected !!