Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:56379 Court No. - 77 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3389 of 2025 Appellant :- Dinesh Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rahul Agarwal,Yash Tandon Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J. Appellant-Dinesh Singh has filed this appeal under Section 380 Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for setting aside the impugned order dated 19.02.2025 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 178 of 2024; titled Dinesh Singh vs. Namrata Singh, whereby his application under Section 340 Code of Criminal Procedure alleging perjury being committed by the opposite party no. 2-wife has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant-husband has argued that in a case filed by the appellant under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against his wife seeking maintenance, the response by wife-Namrata Singh was filed, and the affidavit regarding assets and liabilities filed by her is false, misleading as it conceals the relevant information. According to the learned counsel, this affidavit is misrepresentation of facts and amounts to perjury, but the trial court has not correctly appreciated the contents of application filed by the appellant under Section 340 Cr.P.C., while dismissing it vide impugned order dated 19.02.2025. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the court to the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. dated 28.02.2024 and submitted that the wife had claimed to have spent Rs. 1 Lakh per month towards expenses of the appellant, whereas she had spent more than this amount as per the Credit Card statement for the financial year 2021-22. Learned counsel further submits that in respect of the ailment, it is wrongly mentioned by the wife that her husband is not suffering from any ailment, whereas the appellant is suffering from high cholesterol since 2013 and the son has a sensitive skin. Further, it is pointed out by learned counsel that the wife has claimed her monthly income to be Rs. 6,75,000/-, whereas it is actually much more than this and the details in this regard are contained in para '4(vi)' of the application. Learned counsel has referred to the other particulars given in the said application and argued that the trial court has not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case carefully while passing the impugned order, therefore, it warrants interference by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. After hearing the learned counsel and considering his submissions, this Court does not find any merit in this appeal, as in any litigation, where parties contest against each other, they plead their respective version, and the contentious issues are adjudicated upon by the concerned court on the strength of the evidence adduced by the parties. Even in a case, where a party conceals the material facts, such a conduct would be relevant for the adjudication of the issues between the parties, but it may not amount to perjury. Apparently, it is not a case where any document has been filed before the Court which is forged and fabricated. A perusal of the impugned order dated 19.02.2025 would show that the trial court has carefully examined the material on record and has passed a reasoned order. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, therefore, no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed summarily. Order Date :- 17.4.2025 Brijesh Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad