- If she has concealed the truth facts from the Court in her affidavit regarding her education etc. then you can move an application for Section 340 CrPc ( 379 of BNSS) for lodging an FIR against her . 

- However , this application should be with the valid proof her education and the lie which she has mentioned in her affidavit for Asset and liabilities. 

At the stage of final arguments, courts are generally disinclined to reopen evidence or permit recall of a witness unless it is demonstrated that such recall is essential for a just decision and that the facts could not have been brought on record earlier despite due diligence. Therefore, while filing an application for recall and cross-examination is legally permissible, it will inevitably delay the matter and the court may or may not allow it depending on how material the discrepancies are.

In your case, the issues highlighted by you—such as unsupported expenses, inflated income, inconsistency regarding educational qualification, and contradictory stand on streedhan—are certainly relevant. However, most of these can effectively be addressed during final arguments by pointing out contradictions on record and relying upon your documentary evidence, including salary slips and prior statements made by her in court.

As regards the streedhan issue, if you have a message clearly indicating that she had control over the jewellery and intended to dispose of it, that is a significant piece of evidence. Instead of seeking recall at this stage, you may consider moving a limited application seeking permission to place this additional document on record, if not already filed, or otherwise rely on existing pleadings and contradictions.

From a strategic perspective, if your primary objective is to conclude the divorce proceedings expeditiously, it would be advisable to proceed with final arguments and highlight all inconsistencies and false statements before the court. Courts do take adverse inference where a party makes inconsistent or unsupported claims.

However, if there is a substantial financial impact involved, particularly affecting maintenance, alimony, or property rights, and you believe that these discrepancies go to the root of the matter, then seeking recall may be justified despite the delay.

In conclusion, if the inconsistencies can be adequately addressed through arguments and existing record, it is prudent to proceed without reopening the case. If, however, the issues materially affect the outcome and cannot be effectively demonstrated otherwise, a recall application may be considered as a strategic step.

Please feel free to reach out if you require assistance in drafting arguments or an appropriate application.

1. Only such expenses may be claimed as are essential for basic sustenance, namely food, clothing, and shelter. Any claims relating to luxury items or non-essential expenditures, not directly connected to basic living requirements, shall not be maintainable.
2. It is clarified that there is no entitlement to claim or receive the entirety of the other party’s salary.
3. It is permissible to conduct cross-examination regarding the MBA qualification, including whether the degree has been completed or is presently being pursued. Relevant documentary evidence may be called for and produced before the Hon’ble Court, such as the latest college identity card, fee receipts, admission records, and academic status, including whether the course has been passed or failed, in order to substantiate the claim of pursuing the said course.
4. Any gifts received at the time of marriage shall constitute Streedhan, which is the absolute property of the recipient. Such property remains exclusively with the recipient, irrespective of whether the gifts were given by her parents, the husband, or the husband’s family.

Suggestion: It is advisable to await the progress and outcome of the next 2–3 hearings before taking any further legal steps.

From the contents it can be understood that the contradictions you have mentioned here have already been highlighted during the cross examination, therefore at this stage  you are not left with any other option to reestablish your contradictions. If the observed contradictions have not been highlighted then you can plan to file a reopen and recall petition for this purpose and you should clearly mention in your affidavit that you are required to examine her once again to confirm the lacuna in her evidence deposed earlier.  

if your primary objective is early disposal of the divorce case, it is advisable not to seek recall of your wife at this stage. Instead, you should ensure that all relevant contradictions, particularly regarding streedhan, are brought on record through additional documents and are properly highlighted during final arguments.

In a divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Affidavit of Assets & Liabilities is mainly used to decide in Maintenance / alimony and Financial capacity of parties. At the argument stage, courts are generally reluctant to reopen evidence unless the issue is material and likely to affect the outcome.

At this stage, courts generally do not prefer reopening evidence unless it is shown that such reopening is absolutely necessary for deciding a material issue. With regard to the discrepancies in your wife’s affidavit, the claims relating to expenses or loans without supporting documents are not of significant legal consequence. The court usually relies on documentary evidence, and in the absence of proof, such claims can be effectively challenged during final arguments. Similarly, the allegation that she has inflated your salary is not likely to affect the outcome, as you have already produced your salary slips, and the court will rely on those official records rather than her statements.

The inconsistency regarding her educational qualification, where she has previously stated that she completed an MBA and has now stated otherwise, may affect her credibility to some extent. However, such inconsistency alone is generally not considered sufficient to reopen the case at the argument stage, as it does not directly impact the core issues in the divorce proceedings.

The allegation regarding streedhan is comparatively more important. If your wife has stated that you are in possession of all streedhan, and you possess evidence in the form of messages indicating that she herself has dealt with or disposed of the gold, this becomes a material aspect. This issue may have implications not only for financial claims in the present case but also for any potential future proceedings relating to recovery of streedhan.

In this context, filing a petition to recall your wife for further cross-examination is legally permissible under procedural principles embodied in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. However, such a step will inevitably delay the proceedings, and there is also a possibility that the court may decline the request if it finds that sufficient opportunity was already available earlier or that the application is intended to prolong the case.

You may file an application seeking permission to produce additional evidence, specifically the message relating to streedhan, along with a supporting affidavit. This will enable the court to consider the contradiction without causing substantial delay in the proceedings.

1. Wait for normal proceeding to happen
Waiting for normal proceedings may finalize your divorce in 2-3 hearings, but you risk accepting false statements on record. The court typically does not verify asset/liability declarations unless challenged. If you remain silent, your wife’s inflated claims about your salary, her educational status, and the streedhan allegations could be presumed as admitted or relied upon by the court, potentially affecting maintenance, alimony, or property division. This option gives you speed but leaves factual inaccuracies unchallenged, which may harm you later if she uses this sworn statement in other proceedings (e.g., criminal complaints or maintenance cases). Only choose this if the financial stakes are minimal and you prioritize quick divorce over correcting the record.

2. File a petition to recall your wife for cross examination
Filing for recall and cross-examination is strongly recommended. The discrepancies—her claiming “not completed MBA” versus earlier stating she has an MBA, inflating your salary despite original slips being on record, and falsely alleging you possess streedhan—constitute material contradictions that affect her credibility. The WhatsApp message where she admits intent to sell gold for her own use can be introduced during cross-examination to demolish her streedhan claim. While this will delay the divorce by 7-8 hearings, it forces her to explain inconsistencies under oath. A perjury petition can also be filed later. Given that false allegations can haunt you for years, the delay is worth securing a truthful and just outcome.

Merely wife inflating your salary will not affect you adversely as you have submitted your salary slips in court 

2) if wife stridhan was in her possession you should have at stage of cross examination confronted her with her own messages wherein she said it was in her possssion 

3) act as per your lawyer advice 

Dear client

At the stage where the Court receives evidence, it is presumed that the evidence is complete, therefore, it is only in instances where documents and testimony were either suppressed or misrepresented to the Court is the issue allowed to re-open.

The issues you have identified, e.g., income inflation, failing to qualify for (MBA), unsupported expenses, and discrepancies involving streedhan are not trivial issues as they are related to supporting evidence which goes directly to establishing credibility, as well as determining financial issues (alimony/modifications).

If you proceed with arguing your case , your attorney can still point out discrepancies in your case using documentary evidence (salary slips). However, the contradiction regarding the WhatsApp message concerning gold and the MBA can lose their impact if you do not prove them by way of cross-examination.

It is legally permitted for you to file a motion to recall your spouse for limited cross-examination if you can establish that these documents were obtained prior and are necessary for the Court to make a fair decision. There is the possibility that there may be some delays in the matter; however, if it is a significant issue since you can make a strong case against your spouse for alimony and streedhan.

Balanced Approach, if the financial exposure is very much higher to you, then recall your spouse, if your priority is to get the divorce finalised due to limited involvement in the matter; then proceed with arguments.

Be sure that you have discussed your plan of attack with your attorney prior to moving forward.

if you have any query please feel free to contact us

You ca avoid the above as they are important proceedings of your case

At this stage, do not seek recall/cross-examination just for every inconsistency. Recall is usually allowed only when the court finds it really necessary, and not to reopen evidence or fill gaps.

The better course is to highlight these contradictions in final arguments and, if needed, file a short application to place the message/document on record only if it directly affects maintenance, streedhan, or credibility on a material point. Recall should be asked for only if the false statement is crucial and cannot be dealt with otherwise, because it can delay the case. Family Courts also have flexibility to receive relevant material.

You are at a very sensitive stage of the proceedings. What you choose to do now should be guided not by irritation at inconsistencies, but by what will materially affect the final outcome—especially maintenance/alimony and credibility findings.

Let me analyse your situation in a practical, courtroom-oriented way.

1. Nature of the discrepancies you have noticed

From what you describe, there are four types of issues:

• Unsubstantiated expenses / loans
• Alleged inflation of your income
• Contradiction about her qualification (MBA vs not completed)
• Statement regarding stridhan vs your message evidence

Now, not all discrepancies carry equal legal weight.

Courts in matrimonial matters are primarily concerned with:

• Actual income and earning capacity
• Standard of living
• Financial needs and liabilities
• Custody (if applicable)

So the question is not whether she has made incorrect statements, but:

• Do those inaccuracies materially affect the financial determination or reliefs?

2. Whether to reopen cross-examination at this stage

Since the matter is already at argument stage, courts are generally reluctant to:

• Reopen evidence
• Recall witnesses

Unless:

• There is serious prejudice, or
• The issue goes to the root of the case
  

If you file an application to recall her now:

• It will almost certainly delay the matter (as you correctly anticipate)
• Court may even reject it if it appears to be dilatory

3. How courts usually view such inconsistencies

Let me give you a realistic sense from experience:

• 
  Inflated income allegation
  → Court will rely on your salary slips and documentary proof, not her statement
• 
  Unproven expenses/loans
  → Courts often discount unsupported claims
  
• 
  Qualification contradiction (MBA vs not completed)
  → Relevant only to:

  • 
    Earning capacity
    → Can be argued without recall, if earlier record exists

• 
  Stridhan allegation
  → This is the only issue with some seriousness
  → But again:

  • It can be addressed through:

    • Your denial
    • Existing evidence
    • Adverse inference in arguments

Courts are accustomed to exaggerations in affidavits of assets and liabilities. They rarely reopen trials for that alone.

4. Your second option is actually stronger (strategically)

Instead of recalling her, you can:

• Use these contradictions effectively during final arguments
  

You can point out:

• She has made inconsistent statements on oath
  
• She has:

  • Inflated your income
  • Suppressed her own qualifications
  • Made unsubstantiated claims

This allows you to argue:

• Her affidavit lacks credibility
  
• Her financial claims should be viewed with caution
  

Courts often respond more favourably to:

• 
  Sharp final arguments
  rather than
• Reopening evidence at a late stage

5. What about the WhatsApp message regarding jewellery?

This is important—but timing matters.

Since it was not exhibited earlier:

• Introducing it now via recall may be procedurally resisted

However, you still have two options:

• If the case involves stridhan recovery issues separately, you can use it there
• In arguments, you can still:

  • Refer to overall conduct (though evidentiary value may be limited unless proved)

If this point is crucial, then recall may be justified—but only for this issue, not all discrepancies.

6. Practical risk of recalling her

If you reopen cross-examination:

• She will get opportunity to:

  • Clarify
  • Improve her case

• You risk:

  • Losing the advantage of contradictions

Sometimes, silence from the other side works in your favour—do not give them a chance to repair.

7. What should you do in your situation

Given your facts, a balanced and experienced approach would be:

• 
  Do not recall her at this stage, unless:

  • The stridhan issue is central and substantial

• Instead:

  • Proceed to final arguments
    
  • Highlight:

    • Inconsistencies
    • Lack of proof
    • Inflation and suppression

• Emphasise:

  • Your documented income
  • Her earning capacity (including MBA claim inconsistency)

8. One subtle but important point

Courts are conscious that:

• Matrimonial litigation often involves:

  • Overstatement
  • Strategic pleadings

So judges tend to rely more on:

• 
  documents, not self-serving affidavits
  

You already have documentary support (salary slips), which is your strongest asset.

Conclusion

• Recalling your wife now is legally possible but strategically risky and time-consuming
  
• The discrepancies you found are better used in final arguments rather than reopening evidence
• Your case is already at a stage where closure is near, and prolonging it may not materially benefit you