The High Court dismissed a criminal revision preferring against a revisional order which set aside a maintenance order under the Muslim Women Act. The revisional court had found that the petitioner had already received part of the marriage gifts. No fundamental lack in the impugned order.
Revision dismissed; stay order vacated; record transmitted to Court below.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1915 of 1993
Revisionist :- Shahina Opposite Party :- Anwar Counsel for Revisionist :- M Islam
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
None is present on behalf of the revisionist even in the revised call.
Heard learned AGA and perused the record.
This Criminal Revision has been preferred by the revisionist Shahina against the judgement and order dated 28.10.1993 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur in Criminal Revision No. 44 of 1993 (Anwar vs. Smt. Shahina and another) whereby revision was allowed and the judgement and order dated 30.8.1993 passed by 2nd Additional Munsif Magistrate, Saharanpur in Case No. 27 of 1992 (Smt. Shahina vs. Anwar) was set aside.
Brief facts of the case are that revisionist Smt. Shahina has filed an application before the court concerned under section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (Act No. 25 of 1986) for maintenance that was partly allowed and order was passed to return gold, silver, ornaments and maintenance of Rs. 1200/- for three months.
From perusal of the order of revisional court, it reveals that the revision was allowed on the ground that Smt. Shahina has admitted in her statement that Rs. 1500/- was given to her by her husband on the day of divorce. One witness PW-1 Anwar has admitted that Smt. Shahina had performed second marriage with one Jarif Ahmad after getting divorce from Anwar on her own sweet will, hence learned revisional court found that all things given at the time of marriage was returned to her. Nothing is rest on her husband and thereby learned Additional Sessions Judged quashed the order of learned Magistrate. The findings
given by revisional court are based on facts admitted by Smt. Shahina and her witness.
The view taken by the revisional court is possible view based on evidence produced by Smt. Shahina, hence learned revisional court found that "there is no question of return of the articles as the same had already been taken back by Smt. Shahina. Furthermore, she herself has stated that Anwar had given her Rs. 1500/- after the talak and i.e. Iddat Period."
This Court finds no illegality, impropriety, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment & order. The present revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
The revision is dismissed. Stay order, if any, stand vacated. Copy of this judgment alongwith original record of Court below be transmitted to the Court concerned for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 28.8.2018 Puspendra
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Criminal Revision preferred by Shahina against the revisional order allowing the set aside of the maintenance order and quashing the return of articles has merit.
Shahina
Anwar
Aniruddha Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
