SUPARNA BEGAM Vs. ANUWAR HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Petition has been directed against the judgment dated 18.05.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur in case No. Crl. Appeal 25 (2) of 2017. Smt. Suparna Begam, petitioner herein, filed an application under Section 12 read with Section 19(8) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('the PWDV Act' hereinafter) in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gomati Judicial District at Udaipur claiming a direction to her respondent husband to return her 'stridhan' to her possession. The learned trial court by judgment dated 02.05.2017 in case No. CR Domestic Violence 40 of 2016 allowed her petition and directed the husband to return her Stridhan including Rs.50,000/- in cash, ear ring, necklace and other valuables. In appeal preferred by the husband, the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment upheld the direction of the trial court with regard to return of Stridhan to the appellant except cash of Rs.50,000/- and 01 necklace and ear-ring and the appeal was thus partly allowed. The aggrieved wife has, therefore, filed this criminal revision petition challenging the impugned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are as under:

(3.) The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after recording the evidence of the parties and appreciation of evidence and hearing learned counsel representing the parties allowed the petition by his judgment dated 02.05.2017 directing the husband to return the possession of her Stridhan to the wife as per list furnished by her within 30 days from the date of judgment. Aggrieved with the judgment of the trial court, the respondent husband preferred appeal in the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District at Udaipur under Section 29 of the PWDV Act and the learned appellate court by the impugned judgment partly affirmed the judgment of the trial court. While partly affirming the direction of the learned trial court with regard to return of her Stridhan to the petitioner, the learned Sessions judge set aside the direction of the learned trial court for returning cash Rs.50,000/- and the ear-ring and necklace on the ground that payment of cash and delivery of said gold ornaments were not established by evidence. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the appellate court, the wife has filed this criminal revision petition.