JUDGMENT Umeshwar Pandey, J.
1. This criminal revision under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') against the judgment and order dated 7.2.2000 challenges an award made by the VII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra under Section 3(3) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
2. The respondent-wife Smt. Hameeda moved the Magistrate with a petition under Section 3(2) of the Act to award a sum of Rs. 1,37,000/- as a reasonable and fair provision of maintenance/Mehar or dower, etc. The petition was contested by the revisionist-husband Mohd. Sabir, He, however, admitted the fact about having made the divorce of Smt. Hameeda. The claims of award had been made by the respondent in several heads, amounting to total claim of Rs. 1,37,000/-, but the revisionist-husband had denied his liability for refund/payment of all those claims. The learned Magistrate recorded the evidence of both the parties and upon giving hearing and on consideration of the entire material available found that award of a sum of Rs. 92,000/- out of the total claim of Rs. 1,37,000/-, should be allowed and accordingly the impugned order was passed.
3. Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Court below, the present revision has been preferred.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at full length and have perused the record of the case.
5. In a petition under Section 3(2) of the Act the respondent-wife alleged that she was subjected to extreme torture after she went to her husband's place in the marriage solemnized about 18-19 years back from the date of the petition. The husband and his family members were not pleased with the dowry received in the marriage and as such they had been pressing their demand for such dowry regularly after the marriage. On account of non-fulfilment of such demand the petitioner used to be thrashed and was put under extreme humiliation by her husband. Any amount of attempt of reconciliation on the part of petitioner and her parents and family members did not bring out any result and finally about a year and half before she was assaulted and turned out of her husband's home. Thereafter the petitioner's family members tried to persuade for reprochment as to facilitate Smt. Hameeda re-entering into her husband's house, but it could not give any result. Ultimately, Mohd, Sabir, the revisionist married another woman from District Etah. He did not make the payment of dower nor did he return the ornaments and other presents given to the petitioner in her marriage.
6. So far as the factual aspect of the matter is concerned, the revisionist-husband did not dispute his marriage with Smt. Hameeda nor he has disputed petitioner's departure from his house and has also admitted the fact that he made a divorce of Smt. Hameeda on 11.10.1995. He has, however, disputed the alleged marriage presents belonging to the petitioner, Smt. Hameeda, lying with him and he also disputes the amount of dower fixed at the time of marriage.
7. The Court below, after due appreciation of the evidence, recorded findings and has, thus, calculated the amount which could be awarded to the petitioner under Section 3(3) of the Act. This Court in revision petition under Sections 397/401 of the Code cannot reappraise the evidence recorded in respect of the factual aspects of the case. The findings so recorded by the Court below does not appear to suffer from any jurisdictional error as to occasion an interference in the same by the Revisional Court.
8. It has not been point pointed out by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that the Magistrate while appreciating the evidence has misread the same and has, thus, arrived at a wrong conclusion. Therefore the fixation of the amount for the award to be made in a petition of the nature, as has been done by the Court below, appears to be wholly justified and there is no scope for any interference against the same by this Court.
9. Under Section 3(1) of the Act a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to the following awards :
"(a) a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made and paid to her within the Iddat period by her former husband;
10. The respondent, Smt. Hameeda, claiming herself to be a divorced lady made the petition under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act specifying her different claims in the light of the aforesaid heads. The learned Magistrate while declaring the award in her favour has clearly specified those heads in the impugned judgment and none of it is beyond the purview of the items as enumerated above under Section 3(1) of the Act. The Court below has recorded its satisfaction based on the material available on the record for making such award under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act. The impugned judgment records that the revisionist husband has sufficient means and has deliberately failed to make the payments though he was obliged to make to his wife inasmuch as he also initially tortured Smt. Hameeda and later on turned her out of his house and then divorced her.
11. It has been emphasised by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that the amount of award is quite excessive and it being unreasonable, the same should be interfered with and set aside. But while contending so the learned Councel has not been able to point out as to how the justification recorded by the Court below for awarding the due payments to the divorced wife is divorced from legal reasonableness. The arguments on this point having, of course, been all factual this Court, being a Court of revision, cannot consider and appreciate the same.
12. In the aforesaid view of the matter, there does not appear any force in this revision, which has to fail.
The revision is hereby dismissed.