MOHAMMEDALI Vs. RAHIYANATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned Crl.M.C. and Crl.R.P. have matrix from a common order in Crl.R.P. Nos. 29 and 31 of 2011 dated 1.6.2012 passed by the Court of Session, Kozhikode. A succinct narration of the facts that led to the passing of the aforementioned common order is required for a proper disposal of these cases. The same petitioner filed both these cases against the common first respondent who is his divorced wife. Among the issues to be resolved the sustainability of a direction to return gold ornaments calculating the quantity relying on a photograph wearing the alleged ornaments handed over at the time of marriage, is also included. For the sake of convenience they are respectively referred to hereafter in this order as 'the petitioner' and 'the first respondent'. Their marriage was conducted on 18.10.1998 and the matrimonial acrimony and disharmony developed into a cumbersome situation compelling them to part their ways and ultimately their marriage was dissolved as per decree dated 6.7.2005 in O.P. No. 460 of 2002 of Family Court, Kozhikode. Later, the first respondent -wife filed M.C. No. 11 of 2006 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate of I Class -V, Kozhikode under S. 3 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act (for short 'the Act'). Based on the rival contentions the following points were formulated for consideration by the learned Magistrate: -

(2.) The learned Magistrate found that the first respondent is not entitled to get any amount towards 'iddat' period maintenance and that she is entitled to get Rs. 56,000/ - as reasonable and fair provision and maintenance under S. 3 of the Act. The claim of the first respondent that 'the petitioner' is liable to return 80 sovereigns of gold ornaments or an amount equal to the value of the same and certain other household articles was considered and 'the petitioner' was directed to return either 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments or Rs. 3,62,500/ - towards its value to the first respondent. Both the petitioner and the first respondent preferred revision petitions against the said judgment before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode respectively as Crl.R.P. No. 31 of 2011 and Crl.R.P. No. 29 of 2011 and they were heard jointly and a common order dated 1.6.2012 was passed. As per the same, Crl.R.P. No. 29 of 2011 filed by the first respondent was allowed in part and Crl.R.P. No. 31 of 2011 was dismissed and the petitioner was directed as hereunder: -

(3.) to return fridge and mixer or otherwise pay an amount of Rs. 10,950/ -.