Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1577 (JHR)

Md. Tanqeer Usmani v. State of Jharkhand

2012-11-01

H.C.MISHRA

body2012
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. No one appears for the private opposite parties in spite of repeated calls. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 7-4-2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Dumka, in Cr. Misc. Case No. 69 of 1995, whereby, in a proceeding under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, the petitioner was directed to make the payment of Dein Mehar of 51 Bhar Silver corresponding to Rs. 4590/-, return of gifted articles worth Rs. 22,125/-. Salami Rs. 2600/- and expenses Rs. 6,000/- till the Iddat period to the opposite party No.2, who is the divorced wife of the petitioner, and also to make the payment of Rs. 500/- per month to the opposite party No. 3, who is the minor daughter of the petitioner, living with her mother for her maintenance till she attains majority. 3. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that an application under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Right on Divorce) Act was filed by the opposite party No. 2 herein, claiming he self to be the legally wedded wife of the petitioner, stating that she was divorced by her husband, but her dues as aforementioned were not returned back. The impugned order also shows that the marriage between the parties and the birth of the daughter out of their wedlock are the admitted facts in this case. It further appears from the order passed by the Court below that in the proceeding, three witnesses were examined on behalf of the opposite party No.2 who was the petitioner in the Court below and four witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioner herein, but the petitioner did not examine himself as witness in spite of sufficient opportunity given to him. Some documents were also produced and proved by the parties which have been taken into consideration by the Court below. 4. On appraisal of the evidence brought on record, both oral and documentary, the Court below has come to the conclusion that though the opposite party No.2 wife was divorced by the petitioner, but her legal dues such as Dein Mehar, the articles gifted to her, salami which was given to her, were not paid back to her. 4. On appraisal of the evidence brought on record, both oral and documentary, the Court below has come to the conclusion that though the opposite party No.2 wife was divorced by the petitioner, but her legal dues such as Dein Mehar, the articles gifted to her, salami which was given to her, were not paid back to her. The Court below also came to the conclusion that the opposite Party No. 3, who is the minor daughter of the petitioner, was also entitled to get the maintenance from her father. 5. It further appears from the impugned order that the Court below has taken into consideration the document proved in the Court below by the petitioner which showed that all the dues were returned back to one Abdul Bahab who is said to be the brother of the opposite party No. 2. The Court below has found that the opposite party No.2 herself was present in the Panchayati, in which, the money was alleged to be returned back to the said Abdul Bahab, but the signature of the opposite party No.2, was not taken on the said document. The Court below could not also find any cogent reply to the question that when the divorced wife was present in the Panchayati, then why the delivery of the gifted articles and Dein Mehar were not made to her directly, rather it was made to a different person. The Court below accordingly, disbelieved the said document proved by the petitioner, and in my considered view rightly so, and directed the petitioner to make the payment of Dein Mehar of 51 bhar silver corresponding to Rs. 4590/-and also directed to return the gifted articles, worth Rs. 22,125/- as also Salami worth Rs. 2600/-to the opposite party No.2 and also directed the petitioner to make the payment of Rs. 6000/-to the opposite party No. 2, being her expences during the Iddat period. The Court below has also directed the petitioner to make payment of Rs. 500/- per month to his minor daughter for her maintenance till she attained the majority. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, inasmuch as, the document proved by the petitioner has not been properly considered by the Court below. 500/- per month to his minor daughter for her maintenance till she attained the majority. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, inasmuch as, the document proved by the petitioner has not been properly considered by the Court below. The petitioner has been able to prove the fact that he had already returned back all the dues to the brother of the opposite party No.2. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Learned Counsel however, very fairly conceded that he has nothing to argue against the order of maintenance passed in favour of the minor daughter. 7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and submitted that the Court below has passed the order for making the payment of all the legal dues to the opposite party No.2 and maintenance to the opposite party No. 3 upon proper consideration of the evidence on record and as such, there is no illegality and /or irregularity in the impugned order, worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. 8. After having heard the learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the records, I find that the Court below has fully discussed the materials on record and has rightly disbelieved the document proved by the petitioner to show that the money was returned back to the brother of the opposite party No.2, particularly in view of the fact that it was found by the Court below that the opposite party No.2 hereself was present in the panchayati, in which, it is stated that the money was returned back to her brother, but the document did not contain her signature and there was nothing to satisfy the conscience of the Court as to why the payments were not made to the opposite party No.2 directly. I am of the considered view that in the facts of this case the Court below was perfectly justified in directing the petitioner to make the payment of Dein Mehar of 51 bhar silver corresponding to Rs. 4590/- and also to return the gifted articles worth Rs. 22,125/-, as also the Salami worth Rs. 2600/-to the opposite party No. 2 and to make the payment of Rs. 6000/-to the opposite party No.2, being her expences during the Iddat period. 4590/- and also to return the gifted articles worth Rs. 22,125/-, as also the Salami worth Rs. 2600/-to the opposite party No. 2 and to make the payment of Rs. 6000/-to the opposite party No.2, being her expences during the Iddat period. The Court below was also perfectly justified in directing the petitioner to make the payment of Rs. 500/-per month to his minor daughter for her maintenance till she attains the majority. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Court below, worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. There is no merit in this application and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Application dismissed.