Akul Rastogi v. Shubhangi Rastogi, 2026
It strengthens protections for women in maintenance disputes by preventing misuse of perjury allegations as a litigation tactic.
Judgement Details
Court
Allahabad High Court
Date of Decision
31 March 2026
Judges
Justice Arindam Sinha & Justice Satya Veer Singh
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
The husband filed an appeal challenging a Family Court order that rejected his application seeking permission to prosecute his wife for perjury.
-
He alleged that the wife made false statements in her pleadings to claim maintenance.
-
The husband claimed that:
-
The wife falsely stated she was a housewife, while allegedly being employed.
-
She suppressed information about Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) exceeding ₹20 lakh.
-
-
It was later revealed that:
-
Most FDRs had already been encashed by the wife.
-
Only about ₹4 lakh remained deposited.
-
-
The wife contended that she was not employed and required maintenance.
-
The Family Court found that the husband failed to produce evidence proving her employment.
-
The matter was brought before the High Court in appeal.
Issues
-
Whether the husband discharged the burden of proving that the wife was employed and had made false statements?
-
Whether suppression of certain financial details amounts to perjury or false evidence?
-
Whether a wife’s financial assets received from her father negate her claim for maintenance?
-
Whether the obligation of maintenance can extend beyond the husband, including after his death?
Judgement
-
The Court held that the burden of proof lies on the husband to establish that the wife is employed.
-
It observed that a person claiming unemployment cannot be compelled to prove a negative fact.
-
The Court noted that:
-
The FDRs were given by the wife’s father.
-
A father has no obligation to maintain a married daughter, except in cases like widowhood.
-
-
The Court emphasized that the wife had already encashed most FDRs, indicating financial need.
-
It ruled that mere suppression of financial details does not automatically amount to a false statement or perjury.
-
The Court found no cogent evidence of false statements by the wife.
-
The appeal was dismissed at the admission stage.
-
Importantly, the Court reiterated that a husband’s obligation to maintain his wife continues even after his death, enabling a widow to claim maintenance from her father-in-law under law.
Held
-
The husband failed to prove perjury by the wife.
- Wife’s financial depletion supported her maintenance claim.
-
Appeal dismissed; Family Court order upheld.
-
Maintenance obligation conceptually extends post-husband’s death under statutory framework.
Analysis
-
The Court reinforced the principle of burden of proof, placing responsibility on the alleging party.
-
It clarified an important evidentiary rule negative facts (like unemployment) cannot easily be proven and should not be unfairly demanded.
-
The judgment carefully distinguishes between Suppression and intentional falsehood (perjury).
-
It strengthens protections for women in maintenance disputes by preventing misuse of perjury allegations as a litigation tactic.
-
The Court harmonized statutory provisions with social realities by recognizing post-death maintenance rights under Hindu law.
-
It reaffirmed the relevance of Sections 19 & 21 of HAMA in ensuring social security for widows.
-
The ruling has broader implications discourages frivolous perjury claims and supports a welfare-oriented interpretation of maintenance laws