Heard Mr.Kharadi, learned advocate for the petitioners, Mr.Bharda, learned advocate for respondent No.2 and Mr.Raval, learned APP for respondent No.1 - State.
Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, so also considering the impugned order dated 24.11.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mangrol in Criminal Misc.Application No.40 of 2006, so also the judgment and order dated 22.10.2010 rendered by learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Revision Application No.293 of 2008, it transpires that the respondent No.2 herein filed application u/s.3 of The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 ('the Act', for short) against the petitioners herein, who were opponents in said matter, requesting appropriate order against the opponents therein directing them to deliver certain articles mentioned in paragraph 3 in her application before the trial Court, which according to her, she had brought to her in-laws house at the time of marriage, and it has been further alleged by respondent No.2 - original applicant that even after she was divorced, those articles were not returned to her. It transpires that both the subordinate Courts, examining the oral and documentary evidence adduced by respondent No.2 - original applicant before the trial Court, came to the conclusion that the respondent No.2 - applicant was entitled to be returned back those articles mentioned in paragraph 3 in her application.
It further transpires that before the trial Court, the respondent No.2 - original applicant herself stepped into the witness box as well as she examined her father as her witness. It further transpires that before the trial Court, the respondent No.2 - original applicant produced certain documentary evidence in form of bills and vouchers. It is pertinent to note that though the petitioners - original opponents had resisted the application of respondent No.2 - original applicant by filing their reply but in support of the defence they raised in their reply, no oral evidence was adduced by the petitioners - opponents before the trial Court. In above view of the matter, there is a concurrent findings of both the subordinate Courts on the question of fact that at the time of marriage, the wife had taken all those articles mentioned in paragraph 3 in her application to her in-laws house and even after her divorce, those articles were not returned back to her and, therefore, she was constrained to file the aforesaid application before the trial Court. Mr.Kharadi, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the respondent No.2 - original applicant had joined in application before the trial Court,all the family members as opponents, including her husband and others. It is submitted that such application is tenable only against the husband and not against other family members of the husband. However, perusing Section 3 of the Act, prima-facie, nothing emerges that such application is maintainable only against the husband. Even otherwise, it is pertinent to note that husband is one of the opponents in the application filed by the respondent No.2 before the trial Court.
In above view of the matter, since there is concurrent findings of both the subordinate Courts based upon the evidence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings arrived at by the two Courts by invoking powers vested in this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is, therefore, devoid of any merits and deserves dismissal.
The petition stands dismissed.
(J.C.UPADHYAYA, J.) (binoy) Top