Does multiple maintainence attract perjury

I have same query too. please shed some light i.e.

what is difference ? how to inform court and can we apply for dismiss if it already awarded ?

Thanks

AK

though it is a settled matter that maintainence is awarded only once, my query is, if the petitioner hids from the court that a certain maintainence has already been awarded, and she is already getting it (irrespective of the section on which it is drawn) and she doesnt amend her previous petition, and she doesnt state the new facts that now she is getting maintainence. the court might certainly not entertain her second plea. however. does this act of hers attract sec 340 or perjury?

lying under oath, and not disclosing before court that maintainence has already been awarded, and trying to grab a second maintainence.  is there any provision to penalize such a petitioner. ?

@TAJOBS......request your opinion in this regard, as there are many contrasting replies in different threads...so your advise would indeed be appreciated. thanks

I am not an expert but some interesting legal questions are raised and having encountered such situations myself, here are my two cents on them:

Maintenance applications can certainly be filed, concurrently or otherwise, under multiple Acts and such repeated filings do NOT constitute perjury. The key defense to such repeated filings, once maintenance is granted under an Act, is that there has been no change in circumstances to justify another trial to enhance the amount. If there is a change in circumstances, for example the wife has recently got married, husband's income has increased dramatically or a new child is born to the wife or something along these lines, even under the same Act a fresh maintenance application can be initiated by the wife.

If maintenance was denied under one Act, it is possible that it can be granted under another. The reason behind this is the language of maintenance under different Acts. It is the quantum of maintenance that can be defended more easily, once granted. There are also technicalities such as arrears in maintenance, if never applied before, which a wife/woman may qualify under one Act but not under another. Defenses such as laches, constructive res judicata or law of limitations may not survive for some Acts but may for others. These subtle technicalities, in matters of arrears in maintenance never applied earlier, can be used by a wife to serious detriment of the husband. The situation can also be that circumstances may have improved for the wife - she may have taken a job which she did not have earlier - such change in circumstances allow applications to be filed by the husband to amend or eliminate the maintenance granted earlier. Such applications should be filed under the very Act under which the maintenance sought to be reduced was granted.

Contrary to popular belief, the Act under which maintenance is filed is very relevant to offer defenses and defenses need to be worded with the Act in mind.  However, once it is found that the defenses do not apply, the issue is that of quantum of maintenance and for that the Act under which it is filed may not matter significantly.  Therefore, once maintenance is granted under one Act, any subsequent applications, filed under any Act, for enhancement, reduction or elimination, absent a material change in circumstances,  will not survive a dismissal application.

Now, lets talk about suppression of maintenance already granted in fresh applications. This comes under suppression of material facts and not perjury in Indian jurisdictions, even if the suppression was under Oath and the suppressed fact/evidence was material to the controversy. My reading on the subject (because my wife had materially suppressed numerous facts in her petitions/applications) is that the Court can dismiss the petition but she can refile it with full disclosure. There are numerous, general case laws on the subject on suppression of material facts. In the end, suppression of material facts only delays the proceeding - Husbands usually like things to move fast. So, it is better to raise the issue, lead evidence to allow new facts which were suppressed and let the trial continue and not seek dismissal.

Penalties for suppression of material facts? If our Courts did that, all wives coming to Family Court would be in jail or paying hefty fines because as we all know, they always suppress, not one, but many material facts - not just on maintenance but everything. However, that said, suppression of material facts in an application for maintenance, which relates to the issue of quantum of maintenance, and doing so in the application under Oath as well as during cross-examination under Oath and later proving to be false, has been found to constitute perjury with corresponding penalties - civil and criminal. For example, if a wife claims to be unemployed, testifies under Oath and is later found to be employed, perjury charges will survive. There are sufficient case laws in support.

Hope this info is useful. 

"So, it is better to raise the issue, lead evidence to allow new facts which were suppressed and let the trial continue and not seek dismissal."

should be 

"So, it is better to raise the issue, lead evidence to allow new facts which were suppressed and let the trial continue and not seek dismissal on grounds of suppression of material facts alone but on other grounds, if applicable."

@samir............thanks for your detailed reply buddy, this was the main dilemma i was going through, but with your detailed reply, i have got my answer, as many lawyers are misguiding husbands that we will file crpc 340 for supression of material facts. mainly in cases where maintainence has already been granted bu t the fact is not amended in her main petition, ideally, her main petition should be amended to include the fresh facts that maintainence has already been granted.

in a situation where, her other cases for maintainence come up for evidence, say a DV case, or a 125 case, and she continues to claim whatever is laid in her petition, but, she was caught in the cross examination of her previous case, then what happens? 

because in my case, i crossed her for questions not pertaining to her relavant case which was going on, the case was for her RCR, i put forward my questions relating to maintainence cases., and she was caught completely unaware, i successfully applied this technique to extract maximum truth which would be useful to me  in my maintainence case, now her maintainence case is coming up for evidence. so now if she states what is written in her petition, then, by using her oral evidence, can i apply for perjury.?

thanks buddy

You seem to be doing what I did too... similar situations and in my case too I was not too sure of how to handle the situation. Advocates were misguiding even when they were not sure. In any event, this is what I found to be the legally best way to leverage past admissions or evidence in a new case:

During her cross-examination in the current case, start asking her about old cases, their docket numbers (case number), etc.  Get that info on the record. Then, ask her if she was cross-examined in those cases. Get that on the record. Then present her and the Court with the official transcriptt of the cross-examination in the previous case.  The Court MUST be given official transcriptt of the cross-examination as issued by the previous Court. Ask the Court to mark it as an Exhibit so that you can reference the Exhibit and therefore her cross in your arguments in this case. Then ask her if she had lied under Oath in her previous Cross. The Court or  her advocate may object to this line of questioning.  If the Court /Judge accepts the objection or raises it itself, ask the Court to register your objection on the record so that the fact that you have asked this question is on the record, even though the Court ordered that she need not answer this.

From a procedure perspective, this is the most appropriate way to get it on the record.  Ordinarily transcriptts of cross-examinations in earlier proceedings are also acceptable without expressly presenting them to her in her cross. However, doing it the way I suggested, ensures that all procedural loopholes are sealed. 

Now that you have got two contradictory cross-examinations under Oath from her, she is trapped.  Therefore, present transcriptt of the old cross ONLY after she has answered questions with contradictory answers in the new cross. 

If her cross is over, file an application to recall the witness giving grounds such as  you had misplaced the cross and therefore there was a delay or invent some reason... But you must get the old cross before her and marked it as an Exhibit.

The procedure described here by me is based upon provisions under some sections under the Indian Evidence Act but as I am not an advocate, I am not too sure which section, etc. 

thanks for your inputs buddy, appreciate your exhaustive reply.