GOLAM HASEN Vs. FATEMA SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application has been filed under Sections 401 and 482 of the Cr. P.C. against the judgment and orderdated 16.02.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Dakshin Dinajpur at Balurghat in criminal revisional application No. 35 of 2003 whereby he affirmed the order dated 26.06.2003 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balurghat passed in M.R. Case No. 133 of 2001 filed under Section 3/4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he was married with the opposite party according to Islamic rites and at the time of marriage Den Mohar was fixed at Rs. 8,101/-. As trouble started in between the parties, so the petitioner divorced the opposite party by pronouncing Talaks before the Quzi in writing, in presence of the witnesses on 29.10.1998. Said Talaknama was sent to the opposite party by registered post with A/D. But the opposite party/wife refused to accept the same. Subsequently, the opposite party/ wife filed a petition before the learned Magistrate praying for maintenance. But said case was dismissed by the learned Magistrate by his order dated 15.06.2001. After the dismissal of the said maintenance case filed under Section 125 Cr. P.C., the opposite party/wife filed a petition before'the learned Magistrate under Section 3/4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, hereinafter mentioned as the Act. Said case was registered as MR Case No. 133 of 2001. In the said petition, the wife made various false statements and by preparing a Kabin-nama on the letter head of the husband it was shown that Rs. 81,000/- was fixed as Den Mohar. The case was contested by the husband/petitioner and it was specifically denied by him that he ever executed the said document. It was the specific case of the husband that Den Mohar was fixed at Rs. 8,101/- and not at Rs. 81,000/-, as claimed by the wife. The learned Magistrate by his impugned order disbelieved the claim of the husband and he fixed the Den Mohar amount at Rs. 81,000/-, as claimed by the wife. He has further allowed an amount of Rs. 4,500/- in favour of the wife towards maintenance during her iddat period. Being aggrived by the said judgment of the learned Magistrate, the husband preferred a revisional application before the learned Sessions Judge. But the learned Sessions Judge also upheld the contention of the wife and held that the amount of Den Mohar was fixed at Rs.81,000/-. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order of the learned Sessions Judge, this revisional application has been preferred. It has been alleged that both the Courts below were wrong in holding that the Den Mohar amount was fixed in between the parties at Rs. 81,000/-. The husband has claimed that there was no basis for this finding of the Courts below and as such said finding should be set aside.

(3.) The revisional application has been contested by the opposite party/ wife. Learned Advocate for the opposite party/wife submits that both the learned Courts below were perfectly justified in holding that the Den Mohar amount was fixed at Rs. 81,000/-. The opposite party/wife has prayed for dismissal of the revisional application.