JUDGMENT K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. 1. Heard. Rule was issued on 17.3.2004. 2. Respondent, vide M.A. No.304/2000, had urged for release of Mahr amount of Rs.27,001/from the petitioner her husband. The petitioner questioned his liability to release the amount. According to him, the Shianama (marriage certificate) which was signed and issued, provides liability of Rs.701/and the assertion of respondent divorced wife for Rs.27,001/is illegal. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage certificate (Shianama) of the respondent is not validly proved. The format was not issued by the Wakf Board. The Kazi who had signed the Shianama had no authority and hence, the order calls for interference. 4. Learned Counsel for respondent wife submits, the concurrent findings of both the Courts illustrate proving the Shianama (Exhs. 31 and 37) at the behest of respondent while Shianama, purportedly tried to be believed by the petitioner ( Exh.36) could not be believed and rightly discarded by both the courts. 5. The marital relations between the petitioner and the respondent, facing several proceedings and break in the marriage is not in controversy. The respondent has placed reliance on marriage certificate (Shianama) Exh.37. In support of the same, she has examined four witnesses which includes the Kazi, while the husband, to prove contents of the marriage certificate (Exh.36) has examined three witnesses, however, he did not examine Kazi. Thus, the controversy revolves to the liability to pay Mahr amount; whether it is Rs.701/or Rs. 27,001/. One of the limb of submission was at the time of entering into contract and fixing Mahr amount, the financial status of the parties is also taken consideration. The petitioner had, at the relevant time, 4 acres of the property. Consequently, he could not agree to release the Mahr of Rs.27,001/to the respondent. 6. Quantum of Mahr amount is dependent upon several aspects. It is not the sole criteria of income source but the surrounding situation, the atmosphere and coupled with the earning. It was the mutual understanding between the parties to fix certain amount and it was with this idea volitionally, an amount of Rs.27,001/was fixed as Mahr amount. Both the Courts have elaborately discussed evidence and, thereafter, did not agree to the canvass projected by the petitioner of validity to his marriage certificate. These are the findings of fact recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, confirmed in revision by the revisional Court. Both the Courts have elaborately discussed evidence and, thereafter, did not agree to the canvass projected by the petitioner of validity to his marriage certificate. These are the findings of fact recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, confirmed in revision by the revisional Court. It was also observed that PW No.4 Sayyad Mohiuddin brought with him original Shianama while recording his evidence and, consequently, it could not be said that the marriage certificate produced by the respondent on record was fake or fabricated document. 7. The witness for the Shianama at Exh.36 (produced by the petitioner Sk.Mohd.Patel) candidly accepts that there was office of Kazi and he has to sign and affix seal of his office on the Shianama. Conspicuously, said Shianama Exh.36 does not bear seal of the Kazi, however, the witness had to accept that the Shianama Exh. 37 produced by the respondent has the seal of Kazi. The revisional Court expressed doubts about genuineness of this marriage registration certificate Exh.36. I subscribe to the same. No merit. Criminal Writ Petition dismissed. Rule discharged. The respondent wife is entitled to receive the deposited amount.