(1.) Both these criminal miscellaneous cases arise out of the judgment passed in M. C. 64 of 1988. The 1st respondent in Crl. -M. C. 723 of 1990 filed an application under S.3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (for short the Act) for a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance for herself and the child born to her. The marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent took place on 6th October 1985. The child was born in the wedlock on 26th October 1986. The husband-petitioner divorced the wife on 10th January 1987. The wife filed M.C. claiming Rs. 2,250 as reasonable and fair provision and maintenance under S.3(1)(a) of the Act, and Rs, 12,000 as reasonable and fair provision for the child for a period of two years from 26th October 1986 to 26th October 1988. The first respondent also claimed Rs. 51 towards mahr and prayed for return of certain properties, which are mentioned as items 4 to 7, as per S.3(1)(d) of the Act. The Trial Court allowed the first respondent to recover Rs. 2,250 as reasonable and fair provision for maintenance, and Rs. 4,200 towards maintenance of the child for two years from the date of birth of that child. The first respondent was also allowed to recover a sum of Rs. 26,250 towards the value of 10 1/2 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The petitioner husband was also directed to return the Rolex watch received by him and in default to pay a sum of Rs. 750. Aggrieved by the order the petitioner in Crl. M.C. 723 of 1990 filed a revision before the Sessions Court as Cr. R. P. No. 4/90. The revisional court confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court and hence Crl. M. C. 723 of 1990.
(2.) Crl. M. C. No. 1077 of 1990 is filed by the first respondent wife in Crl. M. C. 723/90. The main prayer in this petition is that the petitioner herein may be permitted to amend the application filed in M.C. 64/88. It is alleged that at the time of filing the petition under S.3 of the the Act, the petitioner did not claim for the maintenance beyond the iddat period, as she was not aware that she could file a petition under S.3 of the Act for maintenance for the future period. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner in Crl. M.C. No. 1077 of 1990 that a subsequent decision of this Court explained the law that a divorced wife is entitled to get future maintenance also under S.3 of the Act and therefore she may be permitted to amend the application filed under S.3 of the Act.
(3.) Both the petitions were heard together. The husband petitioner in Crl. M.C. 723 of 1990 mainly advanced the contention that the Sessions Court went wrong in holding that the respondent wife was entitled to get return of the Rolex watch under S.3 (1) (d) of the Act. The counsel for the petitioner argues that the Rolex watch was gifted to the petitioner by the paternal uncle of the first respondent at the time of the marriage and it does not belong to the first respondent and therefore she is not entitled to recover the same under S.3 (1) (d) of the Act. I am not inclined to accept this contention. Under S.3 (1) (d) of the Act all the properties given to her before or at the time of marriage or after her marriage by her relatives or friends or the husband or any relatives of the husband or his friends are to be recovered by the wife. In the instant case though the Rolex watch was given by the paternal uncle of the first respondent to the petitioner husband, it is as a consideration of his marriage with the first respondent and it is given in trust to him, the beneficiary being the first respondent wife. It is because of the marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent P.W. 5 the paternal uncle of the first respondent gifted the watch to the petitioner that is in fact an article given to the first respondent herself and the petitioner received it on behalf of his wife, the first respondent. Therefore, she is entitled to get back that article under S.3 (1) (d) of the Act.