Tagged: 125, 195, 340, 340 crpc, Criminal Miscellaneous Application, crpc 195, CrPC 340, Department, Income Ta, Income Tax, maintenance, MR K S CHANDRANI, MR RONAK RAVAL, MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI, perjury, QUASHING, return, sections 195, sections 340, SEJALBEN TEJASBHAI CHOVATIYA, wife false affidavit, wife fraud, wife lying
- This topic has 1 reply, 1 voice, and was last updated 4 years, 10 months ago by Anonymous.
06/11/2016 at 3:14 PM #709AnonymousGuest
I am sending newspaper report of judgement on maintenance. Please upload as soon as possible. This case is similar to my case. Please take the judgement as soon as possible and inform us…
THE TIMES OF INDIA
Oct 28, 2016, 06.05 AM IST
HC upholds family court’s order to prosecute woman
AHMEDABAD: Gujarat high court upheld a Rajkot family court’s decision ordering the prosecution of a woman who concealed her income and property while demanding maintenance from her husband.
According to advocate Pratik Jasani, who appeared in the case, Sejal Chovatiya and her husband Tejas Chovatiya had some domestic discord and are living separately. The woman moved the family court in Rajkot in 2013 and filed a suit for maintenance, demanding Rs 20,000 every month. She claimed before the court that she had no source of income.
However, during proceedings, her husband placed on record her income tax returns for the last five years and succeeded in establishing that she runs a business with a considerable income. The court was also provided evidence about her fixed deposits in banks. The woman, however, denied having any income in her cross-examination. The court felt that the woman tried to mislead the court by adducing false evidence. It rejected her alimony plea and ordered the registry to file a complaint against her under sections 340 and 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code for prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.
12/11/2016 at 9:53 AM #3713AnonymousGuest
Hope you are reffering to this judgment http://mynation.net/docs/7666-2016/
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.