Ubaidurrehman vs Smt. Anjum Iqabal
2024 Latest Caselaw 195 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Ubaidurrehman vs Smt. Anjum Iqabal on 29 February, 2024

Author: Vivek Bharti Sharma

Bench: Vivek Bharti Sharma

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

              Criminal Appeal No.64 of 2024

Ubaidurrehman                                    ...... Appellant

                               Vs.

Smt. Anjum Iqabal                              ..... Respondent



Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for the appellant

                                                      29.02.2024

Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J. (Oral)

This criminal appeal is filed by the

appellant/husband against the judgment and order

dated 20.12.2023 passed by Judge, Family Court,

Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Misc.

Criminal Case No.53 of 2023, whereby the application

filed by the appellant/husband u/s 340 Cr.P.C. has

been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant/husband

would submit that the appellant/applicant had moved

an application u/s 340 Cr.P.C. before the Family

Court, Kashipur during the pendency of misc. criminal

case no.461 of 2018 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. on the ground

that in the affidavit filed by the respondent/wife in

compliance of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court

in re Rajnish vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 32, the

respondent/wife had not disclosed the fact that she

was having a professional qualification of stenography

and shorthand from the Industrial Training Institute.

3. He would submit that this application filed

u/s 340 Cr.P.C. was registered as a separate Misc.

criminal case no.53 of 2023 but the trial court erred in

law in not clubbing both the proceedings together and

decided the maintenance case separately by order

dated 23.08.2023 while this application remained

pending and was decided subsequently by

judgment/order 20.12.2023.

4. He would further submit that the trial court

has committed an error in dismissing the application

on hyper-technical ground of not annexing the

affidavit filed by the respondent/wife.

5. Heard learned counsel for the

appellant/husband and perused the material available

on file.

6. The trial court has rightly rejected the

application of the appellant/husband filed against the

respondent/wife alleging perjury on the ground that

the affidavit which is the basis of this application u/s

340 Cr.P.C., has not filed by the appellant/husband

and thus no conclusion can be drawn. In the

considered opinion of this Court, there is no infirmity

or illegality in the order impugned. Same is hereby

affirmed.

7. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed

in limine.

(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.) 29.02.2024 Rajni