1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29th October, 2007 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Vadodara in Regular Civil Appeal No.42/2003 whereby the applications Exh.65 and 100 made by the petitioner to initiate action under section 340 and 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') against the second respondent has been rejected.
2. The petitioner had filed a Hindu Marriage Petition No.382/1999 for dissolution of marriage under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which came to be rejected by a judgment and decree dated 7th May, 2003. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal under section 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 being Regular Civil Appeal No.42/2003 before the learned Principal District Judge, Vadodara. The second respondent filed an application below Exh.7 on 30th June, 2003 under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for getting interim maintenance wherein by an order dated 31st March, 2005, the learned Judge granted interim maintenance. Thereafter, the second respondent filed an application for review under Order 47 Rule 1 read with section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 6th September, 1995 to the effect that the petitioner had purchased four-wheeler and was getting Rs.3,300/- per month for petrol allowance of 75 litres in cash. According to the petitioner, the second respondent has stated false and fabricated and got up facts to get enhanced amount of maintenance. After hearing the parties, the review application came to be rejected.
3. According to the petitioner, in the light of the fact that the second respondent had made false statements on oath in the review application, the petitioner filed an application below Exh.65 on 28th December, 2005 for initiating proceedings under section 340 and 195 of the Code against the second respondent before the learned Joint District Judge, Vadodara in Regular Civil Appeal No.42/2003.
4. The second respondent again filed an application below Exh.97 for enhancement of interim maintenance wherein according to the petitioner, she had made some false facts and false statements and had stated that the petitioner was getting Rs.3,825/- per month as petrol allowance of 75 litres as well as salary of Rs.30,000/- per month. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application at Exh.100 under section 340 and 195 of the Code on 20th November, 2006. By an order dated 29th October, 2007 both the applications came to be rejected. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
5. Assailing the impugned order Mr. Gaurang Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent had made false averments and mentioned false facts in the applications below Exhibit 68 and 97 on oath without any material in support thereof, the learned Judge was, therefore, not justified in rejecting the applications. It was vehemently contended that the second respondent was habituated in making false statements on oath and, therefore, proceedings under section 340 read with section 195 of the Code are required to be initiated against her. It was, accordingly, urged that the petition be allowed by directing the learned Principal District Judge to initiate such proceedings against the second respondent.
6. Opposing the petition, the second respondent, who appeared in person, submitted that the impugned order is just, legal and proper and as such there is no warrant for interference. It was urged that the petition being misconceived deserves to be dismissed.
7. This court has considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner and the second respondent-party in person. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Judge has observed that it is well settled position of law that in each and every matter, no such action can be initiated by the Court, but only in exceptional circumstances, in rare cases where the Court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice it is required to initiate such proceedings that the court should initiate proceedings under section 340 of the Code. After considering the material on record, the learned Judge was of the view that the present matter does not fall within such category and has, accordingly, rejected the applications.
8. This court is in agreement with the reasoning adopted by the learned Judge and does not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Independently examining the merits of the case, as can be seen from the order dated 21st June, 2006 passed by the learned Judge below Exhibit 68 in Civil Appeal No.42 of 2003, there is no finding to the effect that the second respondent has made any false statement on oath. Thus, merely because the second respondent could not substantiate her say with cogent evidence in support thereof, it does not mean that she has stated false averments on oath warranting drastic action under section 340 of the Code. In civil proceedings matters are decided on a preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, if the court finds the say of one party more convincing than the other, the same does not tantamount to the other party having made a false statement.
9. For the foregoing reasons, this court is of the view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Judge so as to warrant interference. The petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
( Harsha Devani, J. ) hki