Bombay High Court
NITESH AMRENDRA SHRIVASTAVAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court upheld the Family Court’s order, holding that the respondent is not liable for perjury as the errors were attributable to her advocate.
Summary
The petitioner, Nitesh Amrendra Shrivastava, filed a writ petition challenging a Family Court order that rejected his application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking perjury proceedings against Respondent No.2, his wife. Respondent No.2 had filed an affidavit that omitted her MBA qualification, source of income, and a pending domestic violence case, which the petitioner alleged were deliberate false statements. The respondent’s counsel argued that the omissions were due to a mistake by her advocate, who was suffering from depression, and that the Family Court had already imposed costs on the respondent. The Court examined whether the non‑disclosure amounted to perjury or whether the advocate’s error could shield the respondent from liability. It held that, although the omissions were serious, the respondent should not be penalised for the advocate’s mistake, and therefore the Family Court’s order rejecting the perjury application stood. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the non‑disclosure of material facts in an affidavit constitutes perjury under Section 340 CrPC.
- Whether liability for false statements in an affidavit can be attributed to the advocate rather than the deponent.
- Whether the Family Court’s rejection of the perjury application is maintainable.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 340
Subjects
- perjury
- affidavit
- Section 340 CrPC
- family court
- advocate negligence
- non‑disclosure
- criminal proceedings
Judgment
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
Page 1 of 2
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
Digitally
mistake of her advocate. As Family Court has already imposed costs, the
signed by
SHUBHADA
SHUBHADA SHANKAR
SHANKAR
KADAM
KADAM writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Date:
2026.09.03
15:33:21
+0530
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 2 of 2
Checking your session…