7-WP-717-2026 (CR).doc Shubhada S Kadam IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 717 OF 2026 Nitesh Amrendra Shrivastava ...Petitioner/s Versus The State of Maharashtra and anr. ...Respondent/s _________________________________________________________________ Mr. A. Karim Pathan along with Mr. Rahul Ameen, Mr. Zahir Shaikh, Mr. Fazal Shaikh, Mr. Shane Illahi, Advocate-Kehkasha and Mr. Shoeb Shaikh, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. S. M. Mangaonkar, APP for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Shreeniwas Magar along with Mr. Rushikesh Salunkhe, Advocate for Respondent No.2. _________________________________________________________________ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 31st AUGUST, 2026. P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. The present petition is preferred against the order passed by the Family Court, Pune, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking initiation of perjury proceedings against respondent No. 2–wife, came to be rejected. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 fairly submitted that the incorrect facts were mentioned in the affidavit due to an error on the part of the advocate representing respondent No.2 before the Trial Court. The said advocate was suffering from depression and was not aware of the facts at the relevant time. Learned Family Judge has already imposed costs 7-WP-717-2026 (CR).doc Shubhada S Kadam of 1,000/- on respondent No.2 On instructions, learned counsel ₹ submitted that respondent No.2 will file a correct affidavit mentioning the correct facts as per the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and anr. (2021) 2 SCC 324. He further submitted that if respondent No.2 commits the same mistake again, this Court may pass appropriate orders against her. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner strongly objected submission that the incorrect statements were due to the advocate’s mistake and submitted that wrong information was deliberately provided in the affidavit by respondent No.2. Hence, requested to pass appropriate orders. 5. I have heard both learned counsel, perused the impugned order. Respondent No.2 had not disclosed her MBA qualification. Respondent No.2 had also not mentioned her source of income and had suppressed the fact regarding the pending DV case. 6. In my view, the non-disclosure of these facts is serious. However, as the advocate representing respondent No.2 has taken responsibility for the said error, respondent No.2 should not suffer for the mistake of her advocate. As Family Court has already imposed costs, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.) SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Date: 2026.09.03 15:33:21 +0530