THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.876 of 2012 Date:20.01.2014 Between:
Quazi Sharufddin . Petitioner.
AND Basheerunnisa Begum and The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
. Respondents.
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.876 of 2012 JUDGMNET:
This revision is preferred against orders of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad dated 29-08-2011 in Crl.RP.No.220 of 2010 which is preferred against orders of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), Hyderabad in M.C.No.15 of 2005.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this revision are as follows:-
First respondent herein filed M.C.No.15/2005 under Section 3 of Woman Protection of Rights on Divorce Act 1986 claiming return of remaining jahez articles or its value, dowry amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, 8 tolas of gold ornaments or its value, 3 tolas of gold or its value, all educational certificates and a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards fair and better provision for her. The trial Court examined the 1st respondent herein as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P8 and on considering Exs.P1 & P5 held that 1st respondent herein is entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- from the revision petitioner herein and directed him to pay the same with interest at 12% within two months and rejected the other reliefs. Aggrieved by the rejection of other reliefs, 1st respondent herein preferred revision to the Court of Sessions and the learned Sessions Judge, on a reconsideration of the evidence of P.W.1 and documents, held that she is entitled for return of 8 tolas of gold and her educational certificates. Accordingly, directed revision petitioner herein to return 8 tolas of gold or its value and certificates. Aggrieved by the orders of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, the present revision is preferred.
3. Heard both sides.
4. The main contention of the revision petitioner is that the 1st respondent herein received back her jahej articles in the presence of mediators and police and in total, she received 63 items, but the learned Metropolitan Sessions Court, without there being any further material, simply accepted the request of the 1st respondent herein and ordered return of 8 tolas of gold and certificates. He submitted that the Sessions Court has not applied the standard test for modifying a judicial order, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for 1st respondent submitted that 8 tolas of gold is one of the item in the jahej articles, but the revision petitioner has not returned the same. He submitted that for the 63 articles received by 1st respondent herein, a list is prepared and signed by the mediators, which is marked as Ex.P5 and the jahej articles list is marked as Ex.P1 and on a comparison of these two documents, this 8 tolas of gold is not appeared among the 63 items. He further submitted that at the time of driving out the 1st respondent from the marital home, all her certificates were retained only with a view to harass the 1st respondent. For this reply, Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that by retaining certificates of 1st respondent, nothing will be gained by the revision petitioner and according to his instructions, no such certificates were left in the marital home. He further submitted that for all the certificates, duplicates can be obtained, therefore, no purpose will be served by retaining them.
6. Now the point that would arise for my consideration is whether the Judgment and Order of the Courts below are legal, proper and correct?
7. Point:- From the material on record, it is clear that Ex.P1 is the original jahej list, which contains the signatures of all the witnesses according to which, there are 16 main items apart from mehar amount. It is also clear from the submissions of both sides that there was a mediation, which resulted in return of 63 items listed in Ex.P5. According to revision petitioner, the 63 items include jahej articles, but according to 1st respondent, 8 tolas of gold which is one of the jahej articles is not among the 63 items returned to 1st respondent under Ex.P5. From a comparison of Exs.P1 & P5, it is clear that 8 tolas of gold shown as item No.3 in Ex.P1 is not among the 63 articles mentioned in Ex.P5. It is not the case of revision petitioner that 1st respondent is not entitled for return of this 8 tolas of gold, but his only contention is that it was also returned and it is among the 63 articles. When this item is not found in Ex.P5 out of the 63 items, the objection of revision petitioner with regard to 8 tolas of gold cannot be sustained. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, after verifying this, directed the revision petitioner to return 8 tolas of gold and there is nothing wrong in giving such direction.
8. With regard to certificates of 1st respondent according to revision petitioner, no certificates of 1st respondent were left at the time of leaving matrimonial home. On the other hand, it is the contention of the 1st respondent that revision petitioner retained her certificates only with a view to harass her.
Now except saying in her evidence that her certificates were retained by the revision petitioner, no material is placed to substantiate the same. As rightly pointed out by the Advocate for revision petitioner by keeping original certificates, nothing can be gained by revision petitioner, because duplicates can be obtained for all the educational certificates from the concerned educational institutions or from the boards that conducted examination by following due procedure. As rightly pointed out by the Advocate for revision petitioner, the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, without any material, to show that certificates of 1st respondent were retained by the revision petitioner directed the revision petitioner to deliver them by accepting the self serving testimony of P.W.1. When there is no evidence to show that educational certificates of P.W.1 were taken away by the revision petitioner and retained them giving direction to return them is definitely a direction without material which is liable to be set aside.
9. On a scrutiny of the material, I am of the view that learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge is right in ordering return of 8 tolas of gold, but not correct in ordering return of educational certificates. For these reasons, the revision is partly allowed by setting aside the direction of learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge for return of educational certificates and confirming the direction for return of 8 tolas of gold.
10. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part.
11. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand disposed of.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
Date:20.01.2014 mrb