D.N. Prasad, J.@mdashThis application under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant challenging the order dated 27.6.1995 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Cr. Revision No. 15/95, whereby and whereunder the Revisional Court set aside the payment of Rs. 13,000/-and return of the articles as mentioned in the Dahej List, which was allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in Misc. Case No. 11/92.
2. The short facts of the case leading to this application is that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnised as back as on 14.6.1980, according to Mohammadan Law with respondent No. 2 and after the said marriage, the couple was living together as husband and wife but the Opposite Party/respondent No. 2 started torturing the petitioner and also started demanding money as dowry and therefore the petitioner came to her parents'' house but again after lapse of one year, she went to her sasural It is further claimed that the petitioner also gave birth to three children out of the wedlock of the petitioner and Opposite Party No. 2 It is further claimed that articles worth Rs. 80,000/- had been given by the petitioner''s father at the time of marriage and a sum of Rs. 13,000/- was given for purchase of Colour T.V. and ornaments were also given at the time of marriage. It is further alleged that Opposite Party No. 2 divorced the petitioner on 14.1.1992 and thereafter, the petitioner had filed a Misc. Case No. 11/92 u/s 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Right on Divorce) Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party No. 2 to pay Den Mehar, expenses for Iddat period and Rs. 13,000/- paid by her father for purchase of Colour T.V. and also return of the articles as mentioned in the Dahej list.
3.The learned Court below allowed the petition granting a sum of Rs. 5,551/- for Deb Mehar and Rs. 13,000/- which was given for purchasing colour T.V. and return of articles as mentioned in the Dahej list by order dated 17.11.1994 passed in Misc. Case No. 11 of 1992.
4. On being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent No. 2 preferred the Revision No. 15/95 which was decided by order dated 27.9.1995 under which order passed by the learned Magistrate was modified and order for payment of Rs. 13,000/- to the petitioner was set aside, against which this revision lies.
5. A counter-affidavit as well as supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2 claiming therein that there is no illegality in the impugned order to be interfered as there is no cogent material to prove that a sum of Rs. 13,000/- was ever paid to the Opposite Party No. 2 for purchasing Colour T.V. It is also claimed that no list of articles was ever proved in the Court below in accordance with law. It is further claimed that the petitioner has already contacted second marriage on 8.5.1997 at Dumka with one Hasmat Ali and she has been leading happy matrimonial life with her second husband.
6. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that all the witnesses examined in the Court below supported about the payment of Rs. 13,000/- to the Opposite Party No. 2 for purchasing Colour T.V. but the learned Court below has not considered the said evidence properly. It is also submitted that P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 are the independent witnesses who had also supported about giving of several articles like silver, Godrej, Almirah, Dining Table, etc. in Dahej and there is consistency of the evidence in support of payment of Rs. 13,000/- but the Court below has not appreciated the evidence properly and as such, the impugned order is fit to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 13,000/- as well as the articles mentioned in the Dahej list.
7. On the other hand, the earned Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 contended before me that there is no illegality in the impugned order as the earned Counsel below has rightly set aside the order for payment of Rs. 13,000/- which was said to have been paid for purchasing colour T.V. and there is no document to substantiate the said story.
8. Apparently, the Revision Petition was allowed in part and the payment of Rs. 3,000/- as expenses for Iddat period was upheld by the Revisional Court. There was also direction to the Opposite Party No. 2 to return golden tops and silver anklets to the petitioner.
9. At this stage, it may be noted here that the earned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 conceded in course of the argument that he has already complied with the order of revisional Court.
10. Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 enuntiates as under:
Mahr or other properties of Muslim woman to be given to her at the time of divorce-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, a divorced woman shall be entitled to-
(a) reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made and paid to her within the Iddat period by her former husband;
(b) where she herself maintains the children born to her before or after her divorce, a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made and paid by her former husband for a period of two years from the respective dates of birth of such children;
(c) an amount equal to the sum of Mahr or dower agreed to be paid to her at her time of her marriage or at any time thereafter according to Muslim law; and
(d) all the properties given to her before or at the time of marriage or after the marriage by her relatives or friends or the husband or any relatives of the husband or his friends.
11. On perusal of the evidence, it is clear that P.W. 2 stated in his Examination-in-Chief that Tanveer had demanded colour T.V. in 1986 1 and the father of the petitioner had given a sum of Rs. 13,000/-, but in his cross-examination, he clearly deposed that Majid (P.W. 3) father of the petitioner told him that in the year 1986, Tanveer had demanded colour T.V. and he had given a sum of Rs. 13,000/- for the same and as such it is clear that the said amount of Rs. 13,000/- was not paid in presence of P.W. 2. P.W. 3, the father of the petitioner No. 1 claimed in his evidence that he had paid a sum of Rs. 13,000/- to the father of Tanveer for purchasing colour T.V. whereas P.W. 5, the petitioner stated that her husband demanded colour T.V. in 1986 and her father had given a sum of Rs. 13,000/- to her husband.
12. Thus, there is much contradiction in the evidence of father and the daughter themselves about payment of a sum of Rs. 13,000/-. Admittedly, there is no document about the payment of the said Rs, 13,000/- to the Opposite Party No. 2, nor there is any document to show that colour T.V. was actually purchased with the said amount. There is also much contradiction as regards to the articles given in Dahej and the learned Court below has dealt with the evidence of P.Ws. in detail. Moreover, the P.W. 3, father of the petitioner and also P.W. 5, the petitioner herself have not disclosed in their evidence as to what articles actually were given in Dahej.
13. It is well settled that this Court in revision is not required to re-weigh the evidence as it was appeal. The Court below has discussed the evidence properly. Thus, I do not find any merit in this revision petition for interference in the impugned order.
Thus, this revision is dismissed accordingly.
