The High Court dismissed the plea of an Ambala woman, against whom a family court had ordered a probe on allegations of concealment of employment information in a matrimonial dispute case.

The woman, who got married in March 2010, had a female child out of wedlock. In June 2017, she had approached a family court in Ambala for interim maintenance from her estranged husband, stating that she had no source of income or property and was unable to support herself and the child.

However, her husband, with record, submitted that she was employed as an assistant professor with a private university and had joined the job on June 7, 2017, before she submitted the application for interim maintenance on June 27. Thus, she had deliberately and intentionally given wrong information to the court in order to grab maintenance and harass him, he had claimed.

Acting on the submissions and record submitted, the additional principal judge of the Ambala family court had ordered a probe against the woman for submitting false evidence in court.

Challenging this order in high court, the woman had argued that though she was employed on June 7, 2017, and application for interim maintenance was submitted later that month, the documents were given to her lawyer in May 2017.

It was further argued that such a practice of ordering an inquiry a matrimonial dispute should be discouraged and an inquiry should be ordered where the possibility of conviction was high, it was pleaded.

But the high court said the practice of making false assertions in court ought to be discouraged because the dignity and sanctity of the court is undermined by such conduct of a party.

The court observed that in matrimonial disputes, it became the foremost duty of the party claiming maintenance to disclose to the court her actual financial status so as to enable the court to come to a conclusion as to the quantum of maintenance be paid, if any.

She has admitted to the fact that she was employed before filing the plea and also did not disclose it during further proceedings before the family court.

Terming her explanation as “completely fallacious”, the court held that even if she could not disclose her employment status at the time of filing of the plea, she had ample opportunities for it at later stage.

“Thus, it can safely be said that the possibility of her conviction was high and her actions were certainly deliberate and conscious to obtain maintenance,” the court observed, dismissing the plea and adding that there are no binding judicial precedents that such a probe cannot be ordered.