IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No. 129 of 2008 Gautam Chadha S/o Shri Chaman Lal Chadha R/o M-281 (FF), Guru Harikishan Nagar, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110087 ……………......Revisionist Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand 2. Richa Chadha D/o Shri Vinod Johar, R/o 104/24, Rishikesh Road, P.S.Rishikesh, Dist- Dehradun 3. Shri Vinod Kumar Johar, S/o Shri Madan Mohan Johar R/o 104/24, Rishikesh Road, P.S.Rishikesh, Dist- Dehradun ………….Opposite parties Shri Vinod Sharma, Advocate, present for the revisionist Shri M.A.Khan, Brief Holder, present for respondent no.1 Smt. Prabha Naithani, Advocate, present for respondent no.2 Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This revision is directed against the order dated 13.03.2008 passed by Additional Judge, Family Court, Rishikesh, in Misc. Application No.56 of 2006 2 whereby said court has dismissed the application under section 340 of Cr.P.C moved by the petitioner. (2) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Gautam Chadha got married to respondent no.2 Richa Chadha in the year 1999. A petition for divorce appears to have been filed by respondent no.2 before the Additional Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, which was registered as Case No. 01 of 2004 in which she moved an application under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for maintenance. In support of said application an affidavit was filed by the respondent no.2 stating that she is not in job. The said fact was challenged by the petitioner bringing it to the notice of the court that respondent no2 was employed with Ananda Himalaya, Narendra Nagar. After hearing the parties and considering the facts and circumstance of the case, the trial court found it was true that the respondent no.2 Richa Chadha was employed with Ananda Himalaya, Narendra Nagar, and her application under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was rejected vide order dated 14.03.2008. 3 (3) Grievances of the present petitioner Gautam Chadha is that the respondent no.2 filed a false affidavit before the trial court to claim the maintenance. In reply to this learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submitted that in the month of January 2004 when the divorce petition was filed respondent no.2 was not in the job. Only subsequently she got job with Ananda Himalaya, Narendra Nagar. However, the affidavit appears to have been filed by the respondent no2 before the trial court on 11.05.2006. By said date she had already been employed. As such the fact alleged in the affidavit on that date that she was not employed was incorrect. (4) But this court is of the view, that it is not necessary in each and every case to proceed under section 340 of Cr.P.C. It is the discretion of the court and it is only where the court thinks expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into an offence referred to in clause (b) of sub section (1) of section 195 in respect of a document placed and given in an evidence in proceedings in the court, it proceeds under said section. Since the trial court in its 4 discretion, in the facts and circumstance of the case, did not find it a fit case to proceed under section 340 of Cr.P.C and simply rejected the application under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial court. (5) For the reasons as discussed above, this revision is dismissed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.12.8.2010 N.P