Filing of Section 340 CrPC Application After Final Arguments Does Not Mandate Deferment of Maintenance Judgment

The revisionist (husband) challenged an order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the Family Court, Sonbhadra, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which directed him to pay maintenance of ₹15,000 per month from the date of application and ₹20,000 per month from the date of the order.

The revisionist, a Divisional Engineer in the Railways with a monthly salary of approximately ₹74,513, argued the amount was excessive.

He further contended that the Trial Court erred by deciding the maintenance plea while an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. (regarding alleged perjury/forgery by the wife) was pending.

The records indicated the Section 340 application was filed only after final arguments in the maintenance case were concluded and the matter was fixed for judgment.

1. Whether the Trial Court committed a jurisdictional error by deciding the Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings without first adjudicating the pending application under Section 340 Cr.P.C.

2. Whether the quantum of maintenance awarded (₹20,000 per month) was disproportionate to the revisionist's income and the wife's qualifications.

Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the husband's obligation to maintain a wife unable to maintain herself.

The Supreme Court precedent in Rajnesh v. Neha (2020) 13 SCC 454, which mandates the filing of disclosure affidavits and establishes criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance based on the parties' financial status.

The Court distinguished Amit Bajpai v. State of U.P. (2023), noting that while Section 340 Cr.P.C. applications regarding perjury should ideally be decided early, they are independent proceedings that do not automatically stay a judgment if filed at the eleventh hour.

The Court found the revisionist's reliance on Amit Bajpai misplaced because, in that precedent, the Section 340 application was filed early in the proceedings, whereas here it was filed after the conclusion of final arguments solely to stall the judgment.

The Court clarified that Section 340 Cr.P.C. proceedings are independent and do not ipso facto oblige a court to defer a Section 125 judgment when the case is already reserved.

On the merits of the quantum, the Court noted the revisionist admitted a basic pay of ₹50,000 and a gross salary of ₹74,513. Given the inflationary trends and the revisionist's status as a Central Government employee, the Court held that ₹20,000 (roughly 25-30% of net income) was reasonable and aligned with the principles of Rajnesh v. Neha.

High educational qualifications (MBA) of the wife did not automatically disqualify her from maintenance if she was currently unemployed.

On the second issue, it held the quantum was neither arbitrary nor excessive.

The High Court found no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned order. The Criminal Revision was dismissed, and the Trial Court's order was upheld.