Section 340 CrPC / Section 379 BNSS: How to Prosecute False Evidence in Matrimonial Cases? Successful Judgments Explained

False statements, concealed income, fabricated documents and incorrect affidavits are unfortunately not uncommon in matrimonial litigation. A spouse may state that he or she is unemployed despite actually working, conceal bank accounts or financial assets, deny receiving money which is proved through documents, or make a specific statement on oath which is demonstrably contradicted by official records.

But does every false statement amount to perjury?

Can a husband simply file an application under Section 340 CrPC whenever he finds a contradiction in his wife’s affidavit?

The answer is no.

Section 340 CrPC was never intended to become another retaliatory proceeding between fighting spouses. Courts repeatedly hold that perjury proceedings should be initiated only where the falsehood is deliberate, material and capable of affecting the administration of justice, and where reliable evidence demonstrates that the statement could not possibly be true.

At the same time, there are important matrimonial cases where husbands have successfully invoked Section 340 CrPC and courts have ordered prosecution against wives who deliberately concealed employment or financial information while seeking maintenance.

Under the new criminal laws, the corresponding procedural provision is now Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The older judgments under Section 340 CrPC nevertheless remain highly relevant because Section 379 substantially carries forward the same legal mechanism.

What Is Section 340 CrPC?

Section 340 CrPC provides the procedure by which a court can initiate criminal prosecution for certain offences affecting the administration of justice, including giving false evidence and fabricating evidence in judicial proceedings.

The provision does not itself punish perjury. It lays down the mechanism through which the concerned court can form an opinion that prosecution is necessary, make a written complaint and send that complaint to the competent Magistrate.

Under the present law, Section 379 BNSS performs this procedural function and operates with Section 215 BNSS.

The substantive offence of giving false evidence is now contained in Section 227 BNS, fabrication of false evidence in Section 228 BNS, and punishment for false evidence in judicial proceedings is dealt with under Section 229 BNS. Section 229 provides punishment extending up to seven years for intentional false evidence or fabrication of evidence for use in a judicial proceeding.

Therefore, lawyers and litigants will continue to use the familiar expression “340 CrPC application”, but in proceedings governed by the new criminal laws, the corresponding provision is Section 379 BNSS.

What Must Be Proved for a Successful Section 340 Application?

A Section 340 application does not succeed merely because one statement made by the opposite party ultimately turns out to be wrong.

The Supreme Court in Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam, (1971) 1 SCC 774 explained that prosecution for perjury should not be ordered too readily. There must be a prima facie case of deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance, and the court should be satisfied that prosecution is expedient in the interest of justice.

Similarly, in Chandrapal Singh v. Maharaj Singh, (1982) 1 SCC 466, the Supreme Court explained that simply because a court rejects one party’s version does not mean that the rejected version automatically becomes perjury.

In R.S. Sujatha v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 5 SCC 689, the Supreme Court reiterated that something substantially higher than suspicion is necessary. Distinct evidence must demonstrate deliberate falsehood and the court must independently consider whether prosecution is necessary in the interests of justice. These principles already formed an important part of the original Lexspeak article.

In practical terms, a strong Section 340 case usually requires three things.

First, there must be a specific statement attributable to the person.

Second, there must be reliable evidence proving the opposite fact.

Third, both versions must be incapable of existing simultaneously.

For example:

The wife states on oath:

“I am unemployed and have no source of income.”

The employer’s official record proves:

She was employed on the very date of the affidavit and was receiving salary.

That is substantially stronger than merely arguing:

“She is highly qualified, therefore she must be earning.”

Which Type of False Statement Is Most Effective for Section 340?

The strongest cases usually involve an objective fact capable of being proved through official documentation.

Employment is a good example.

Bank accounts are another.

Property ownership, salary records, government records, previous settlements, official travel records and authenticated documents can also provide strong evidence.

The weaker cases involve matters which are fundamentally disputed, subjective or dependent upon appreciation of evidence.

For instance, suppose the wife says:

“My husband earns ₹5 lakh per month.”

The husband says:

“I earn ₹2 lakh.”

That dispute ordinarily requires evidence. Merely exaggerating estimated income does not automatically establish deliberate perjury.

The Allahabad High Court reiterated this principle in 2026 while refusing perjury proceedings merely because the husband’s income had allegedly been exaggerated in a maintenance case.

A successful Section 340 case therefore generally involves something much stronger than an estimate or contested allegation.

Successful Case No. 1: Jagdish Prasad v. State — Delhi High Court

Jagdish Prasad v. State & Ors., Delhi High Court, decided on 23 March 2009 is one of the best matrimonial examples of a successful Section 340 proceeding.

The wife had filed proceedings for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC and stated that she was not employed and was unable to maintain herself.

During her evidence, she went further and specifically stated that she had not worked after leaving her matrimonial home. During cross-examination she denied having worked at Tirath Ram Shah Charitable Hospital and also denied having a particular Punjab National Bank account.

The husband did not stop at putting suggestions to her.

This is where the case became important.

Officials from Punjab National Bank and Tirath Ram Shah Charitable Hospital were examined.

The bank official proved that the wife had opened an account using the hospital address and had described her occupation as “service”.

The hospital official proved from original records that she had actually worked as a receptionist during the relevant period.

The Metropolitan Magistrate concluded that she had given false testimony and that she ought to be prosecuted under Section 193 IPC.

The Sessions Court later interfered with the order, but the Delhi High Court restored the prosecution.

Justice S. Muralidhar held that the evidence already recorded was sufficient for the Magistrate to form the necessary prima facie opinion and that the requirement of finding prosecution expedient in the interest of justice had been satisfied.

The Delhi High Court therefore revived the complaint for prosecution of the wife.

What Is the Practical Lesson From Jagdish Prasad?

This is exactly why I have repeatedly emphasised in matrimonial litigation that the correct sequence is:

Statement → Cross-examination → Official documents → Witness proving documents → Section 340.

The husband succeeded because he did not merely produce a screenshot or make an allegation.

He proved the true fact through independent institutional witnesses.

This remains one of the strongest models for preparing a Section 340 application.

Successful Case No. 2: Sejalben Tejasbhai Chovatiya v. State of Gujarat

Another important successful case is Sejalben Tejasbhai Chovatiya v. State of Gujarat, 2016 SCC OnLine Guj 6333, decided by the Gujarat High Court on 20 October 2016.

The wife had filed a maintenance proceeding under Section 125 CrPC and represented herself as a housewife without an independent source of income.

The husband alleged that she had suppressed material financial information, including income from business activities and permanent alimony of approximately ₹4 lakh received from a previous marriage.

The Family Court examined the evidence and directed prosecution under Sections 195 and 340 CrPC for offences relating to false evidence.

The wife challenged that order before the Gujarat High Court.

The High Court refused to interfere.

The Court emphasised that when beneficial legislation is sought to be used by declaring completely incorrect facts and suppressing material information, the impact upon administration of justice may make prosecution expedient.

Thus, the Family Court’s decision to initiate perjury proceedings survived scrutiny before the High Court.

Why Is Sejalben Important?

The important issue was not simply that the wife had money.

The problem was that the financial fact was material to the relief she was seeking.

Maintenance proceedings depend fundamentally upon financial disclosure.

A false statement concerning employment or income can directly influence whether maintenance is awarded and in what amount.

This is why financial falsehood carries much greater significance than an immaterial contradiction regarding some collateral matrimonial event.

Successful Case No. 3: Ritu @ Ridhima v. Sandeep Singh Sangwan

The Punjab & Haryana High Court judgment in Smt. Ritu @ Ridhima & Anr. v. Sandeep Singh Sangwan, CRR-457-2022, decided on 15 March 2022 is probably one of the clearest modern matrimonial authorities supporting prosecution for concealed employment.

The wife filed proceedings under Section 125 CrPC claiming that she had no independent income.

However, she had already joined Chitkara University as an Assistant Professor on 3 July 2017 at a monthly salary of ₹28,000.

Her maintenance petition was filed later that month.

Even during the pendency of the proceedings and consideration of interim maintenance, she did not disclose her employment.

The truth emerged only during cross-examination when she was confronted with her employment.

The Family Court concluded that she had knowingly given false evidence and directed an inquiry under Section 340 CrPC, with a complaint to be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

She challenged that order before the Punjab & Haryana High Court.

The High Court dismissed her challenge.

Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi observed that a person seeking maintenance has a foremost duty to disclose her true financial status. The Court considered the non-disclosure deliberate and conscious and noted that the possibility of conviction was high.

The Section 340 proceedings therefore survived.

Why Ritu @ Ridhima Is Particularly Important After Rajnesh v. Neha

Maintenance litigation today revolves heavily around financial disclosure affidavits after Rajnesh v. Neha.

That makes the principle in Ritu @ Ridhima even more relevant.

If a party is specifically required to disclose employment, salary, assets and financial resources and deliberately answers those questions falsely, the falsehood goes directly to the adjudicatory process.

But again, documentary proof remains essential.

An allegation that the wife “must be earning” is very different from producing:

the appointment letter,

salary record,

bank salary credit,

employer testimony,

and an affidavit in which she simultaneously stated that she was unemployed.

The second category is where a meaningful Section 340 case begins to emerge.

Supreme Court Example: Mohan Singh v. Amar Singh

Although Mohan Singh v. Amar Singh, (1998) 6 SCC 686 was not a matrimonial case, it remains an important Supreme Court authority demonstrating when courts should actually set criminal law in motion for false evidence.

The Supreme Court found prima facie material showing false affidavits and tampering with judicial records.

Rather than merely condemning the conduct, the Court directed its Registrar to lodge a complaint before the competent court so that criminal proceedings could be initiated.

The case is important for the broader proposition that false evidence becomes serious when it threatens the integrity of the judicial process itself.

For matrimonial lawyers, this case supports the proposition that Section 340 is ultimately not a private remedy belonging to the husband or wife.

It exists to protect the administration of justice.

Should a Section 340 Application Be Filed Immediately?

Not necessarily.

This is one of the most important strategic questions.

Suppose the wife files an affidavit today stating:

“I am unemployed.”

The husband possesses a LinkedIn screenshot indicating employment.

Should he immediately file Section 340?

Usually that would be premature unless the relevant truth has been reliably established on the judicial record.

The stronger strategy is often to first obtain and prove the employer records.

This was precisely the practical point made in my earlier Lexspeak article on the best stage for Section 340 proceedings. The application is strongest after the false statement and the true documentary position are both clearly established.

Latest 2026 Judgment Shows Why Timing Matters: Rizwana Bano v. State of U.P.

A recent Allahabad High Court decision illustrates the danger of obtaining a Section 340 order prematurely.

In Rizwana Bano v. State of U.P., 2026:AHC:123196, the Family Court had directed filing of a complaint against the wife in connection with alleged concealment of a prior settlement/talaqnama and receipt of one-time maintenance.

However, the underlying maintenance proceeding was still pending and conflicting forensic evidence existed concerning the disputed document.

The Allahabad High Court held that the factual controversy required evidence and that the Family Court should ordinarily determine the Section 340 application after the evidence in the maintenance case had concluded.

The High Court therefore set aside the immediate prosecution order and remanded the 340 application for consideration after completion of evidence.

This is an important practical lesson:

A strong allegation filed at the wrong stage can still produce an unsuccessful 340 application.

What Is the Best Time to File Section 340 in a Matrimonial Case?

There is no absolute rule because the stage depends upon the nature of the falsehood.

But generally, I prefer the following sequence.

First allow the opposite party to make the clear statement on affidavit or oath.

Then confront the party in cross-examination where appropriate.

Bring the contrary documentary evidence onto the record.

Where necessary, summon the custodian of that evidence—such as employer, bank or institution—to prove it.

Once both facts become judicially ascertainable, move or press the Section 340 application.

In some cases the application can be filed earlier but requested to be decided with the main proceeding.

The objective should not be to file 340 quickly.

The objective should be to make it difficult to reject.

Can a False Rajnesh v. Neha Affidavit Lead to Section 340 Proceedings?

Potentially, yes.

A financial disclosure affidavit is evidence relied upon by the court for deciding maintenance.

If a person knowingly states:

“I have no employment.”

while simultaneously being employed;

or

“I have no bank account.”

when official bank evidence proves otherwise;

or deliberately conceals a substantial and material source of income,

the circumstances can justify examining whether perjury proceedings should follow.

However, not every omission in an income affidavit amounts to criminal perjury.

The court still has to determine:

Was the statement deliberate?

Was it material?

Is falsity clearly proved?

Was the court actually sought to be misled?

Is prosecution necessary in the interest of justice?

These questions remain central.

Latest Supreme Court Warning: Do Not Use Section 340 as Matrimonial Revenge

The most important recent caution comes from the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ann Saurabh Dutt v. Lt. Col. Saurabh Iqbal Bahadur Dutt, 2026 INSC 475, decided on 12 May 2026.

The husband had pursued Section 340 proceedings seeking prosecution of his former wife for alleged false statements.

The Family Court rejected the request.

The High Court also rejected it.

The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court again rejected the husband’s request and observed that the allegations appeared to arise from a personal vendetta and a hyper-technical dissection of the matrimonial record, rather than facts constituting genuine perjury.

The Court held that the necessary ingredients for prosecution were not established.

This judgment is extremely important for anyone preparing a 340 application today.

A Section 340 application should not contain 25 minor contradictions.

That can actually weaken the case.

I would rather present one undeniable material lie supported by independent evidence than 20 arguable discrepancies arising out of matrimonial allegations.

What Kind of Contradictions Usually Do Not Justify Section 340?

Suppose the wife states that a particular incident occurred at 6:00 PM in the complaint and during evidence says 7:00 PM.

That is ordinarily a contradiction for appreciation during trial, not necessarily perjury.

Suppose she estimates that the husband earns ₹5 lakh while his salary records show ₹4 lakh.

Again, that may affect credibility but is not automatically perjury.

Suppose she alleges cruelty and ultimately fails to prove it.

Failure to prove an allegation does not itself establish that she knowingly fabricated it.

The correct use of Section 340 begins where the evidence demonstrates a conscious statement of an objective false fact.

What Is the Difference Between Contradiction and Perjury?

This distinction is fundamental.

A contradiction means two pieces of evidence do not completely agree.

Perjury requires something more.

The person must knowingly or deliberately state something false while legally obliged to speak truth.

Therefore:

Contradiction:
Wife says expenditure is ₹60,000 but produces bills of ₹45,000.

Possible perjury:
Wife states on oath that she has never been employed, while her official employment record proves she was employed on that very date and salary was being credited to her bank account.

The second situation produces a much stronger prima facie inference of deliberate falsehood.

Should Section 340 Be Used During Cross-Examination Strategy?

Yes, but strategically.

If you already possess an official record contradicting the witness, do not necessarily reveal your entire case prematurely.

Ask a clear question.

Obtain a clear answer.

Then confront the witness with the document.

Where the document requires formal proof, summon the relevant witness.

This creates a clean evidentiary sequence:

Question → categorical denial → official contrary record → proof of record.

That is precisely the kind of record which made Jagdish Prasad and Ritu @ Ridhima effective 340 cases.

Can Section 340 Help Reduce Maintenance?

Section 340 itself is not a maintenance-reduction provision.

But the same evidence which supports a perjury proceeding may materially affect maintenance.

Suppose a wife obtains interim maintenance after claiming unemployment.

Later it is proved that she was actually earning ₹80,000 per month at that time.

That evidence may potentially support:

a challenge to maintenance,

modification of maintenance,

credibility arguments,

recovery/set-off arguments depending upon the applicable law,

and, in a sufficiently serious case, proceedings under Section 340 CrPC / Section 379 BNSS.

The strategic mistake is using 340 as a substitute for challenging maintenance.

Both remedies address different legal questions.

Does Filing Section 340 Automatically Mean the Wife Will Be Convicted?

No.

Even when a court allows a Section 340 application, that does not itself amount to a final conviction for perjury.

The court considering the 340 application forms a prima facie opinion and makes a complaint.

The competent criminal court thereafter proceeds in accordance with law.

This distinction was recognised in Jagdish Prasad, where the Delhi High Court explained that the Magistrate’s conclusion that the wife “ought to be prosecuted” was a prima facie opinion sufficient for the Section 340 stage—not a final adjudication of criminal guilt.

What Makes a Section 340 Application Strong?

In my experience, the strongest application is usually quite simple.

Identify the exact statement.

Mention the date on which it was made.

Explain why that statement was material.

Identify the official document proving the opposite fact.

Explain how the document has been legally proved.

Demonstrate that both facts cannot simultaneously be true.

Then explain how the false statement affected or was intended to affect the judicial proceeding.

Finally, address the most important statutory requirement:

Why is prosecution expedient in the interest of justice?

Do not merely say:

“My wife lied, therefore punish her.”

Instead say:

“The court was asked to determine maintenance on the basis of financial inability. The applicant categorically denied employment on oath. Official employer and bank records prove that she was employed and earning at the relevant time. The false statement therefore directly concerned the foundational issue upon which monetary relief from the court was sought.”

That is a far stronger Section 340 case.

Three Successful Matrimonial Section 340 Cases at a Glance

Jagdish Prasad v. State & Ors. — Delhi High Court, 2009: Wife denied employment and a bank account. Bank and hospital officials proved both. The Delhi High Court restored the complaint for prosecution.

Sejalben Tejasbhai Chovatiya v. State of Gujarat — Gujarat High Court, 2016: Wife claimed no income while material financial information was suppressed. Family Court ordered prosecution and the Gujarat High Court refused to interfere.

Smt. Ritu @ Ridhima v. Sandeep Singh Sangwan — Punjab & Haryana High Court, 2022: Wife claimed to be unemployed despite having joined as Assistant Professor at ₹28,000 per month. Family Court ordered inquiry/prosecution and the High Court dismissed her challenge.

These three judgments should be the central case-law section of a matrimonial Section 340 article because they do not merely discuss abstract principles—they show Section 340 actually succeeding.

Conclusion

Section 340 CrPC, now corresponding to Section 379 BNSS, is one of the few legal mechanisms available to protect judicial proceedings from deliberate false evidence.

But it is also one of the most frequently misunderstood provisions in matrimonial litigation.

The correct strategy is not to file a Section 340 application every time the opposite party makes an incorrect statement.

The correct strategy is to identify a material deliberate falsehood, prove the true fact through reliable evidence and demonstrate why allowing that falsehood to pass without consequence would affect the administration of justice.

The successful judgments show a consistent pattern.

In Jagdish Prasad, the husband proved employment through the hospital and bank.

In Sejalben Chovatiya, material financial suppression directly affected the maintenance claim.

In Ritu @ Ridhima, employment existing at the time of the maintenance proceeding was proved and had been consciously withheld until cross-examination.

By contrast, the Supreme Court’s 2026 ruling in Ann Saurabh Dutt demonstrates the other side: a Section 340 application driven by matrimonial anger, minor inconsistencies or hyper-technical analysis is unlikely to succeed.

Therefore, the strongest practical formula is:

Material statement + deliberate falsehood + unimpeachable evidence + impact on judicial decision-making + expediency in the interest of justice.

Section 340 should not be treated as another weapon in matrimonial litigation.

Used correctly, it is a mechanism to ensure that judicial proceedings cannot be successfully manipulated through deliberate false evidence.