Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Malay Kumar Basu, J.
Manowara Begum
Versus
Sd. Bazle Kader Siddiki (Ravi)
with
Sd. Bazle Kader Siddiki
Versus
Manowara Begum
C.R.R No. 306 of 2002 with C. R. R. No. 203 of 2002
Decided On : December 11, 2002
MUSLIM WOMEN (PROTECTION OF RIGHTS ON DIVORCE) ACT, 1986 - SECTION 3(2) - MAINTENANCE - IDDAT PERIOD - FAIR MAINTENANCE - SECTION 125 CR. P. C. - APPLICABILITY - REASONABLE AND FAIR PROVISION.
Fact of the Case:
Husband filed a revision petition against the order of the Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge, Hooghly, directing him to pay maintenance to his wife for the Iddat period and beyond. The wife also filed a revision petition seeking modification of the order to make it effective from the date of application instead of the date of the order.
Finding of the Court:
1. The court held that a second revision petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is maintainable in extraordinary circumstances where a gross error of law or glaring perversity in the appreciation of evidence has taken place to prevent the abuse of the process of the court or miscarriage of justice. 2. The court found that the wife had established that she was given cash and gold ornaments at the time of marriage, and that the husband had not returned them to her. The court held that these items were intended for the wife's enjoyment and well-being, and that the husband was merely a custodian of such properties. 3. The court rejected the husband's contention that certain letters written by his mother and brother-in-law, which were relied upon by the wife to prove the payment of cash and gold ornaments, should be expunged from evidence. The court found that the letters were properly proved and that there was no evidence to suggest that they were not genuine. 4. The court held that the findings of the courts below on the factual points were based on correct appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from perversity. Accordingly, the court declined to interfere with the impugned order. 5. The court also held that the wife was not entitled to maintenance beyond the Iddat period under Section 3(1)(a) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The court interpreted Section 3(1)(a) to mean that the husband's liability to provide maintenance for his divorced wife ceased with the expiration of the Iddat period, but that if she was unable to maintain herself after the Iddat period, she could have recourse to Section 125 Cr. P. C.
Issues: 1. Whether a second revision petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is maintainable in extraordinary circumstances? 2. Whether the wife had established that she was given cash and gold ornaments at the time of marriage, and that the husband had not returned them to her? 3. Whether certain letters written by the husband's mother and brother-in-law, which were relied upon by the wife to prove the payment of cash and gold ornaments, should be expunged from evidence? 4. Whether the findings of the courts below on the factual points were based on correct appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from perversity? 5. Whether the wife was entitled to maintenance beyond the Iddat period under Section 3(1)(a) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A second revision petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is maintainable in extraordinary circumstances where a gross error of law or glaring perversity in the appreciation of evidence has taken place to prevent the abuse of the process of the court or miscarriage of justice. 2. The wife had established that she was given cash and gold ornaments at the time of marriage, and that the husband had not returned them to her. These items were intended for the wife's enjoyment and well-being, and the husband was merely a custodian of such properties. 3. The letters written by the husband's mother and brother-in-law were properly proved and there was no evidence to suggest that they were not genuine. Therefore, they were admissible in evidence. 4. The findings of the courts below on the factual points were based on correct appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from perversity. Accordingly, the court declined to interfere with the impugned order. 5. The wife was not entitled to maintenance beyond the Iddat period under Section 3(1)(a) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. Section 3(1)(a) means that the husband's liability to provide maintenance for his divorced wife ceased with the expiration of the Iddat period, but that if she was unable to maintain herself after the Iddat period, she could have recourse to Section 125 Cr. P. C.
Final Decision: Both the revision petitions were dismissed and the impugned order of the revisional court below was upheld. The husband was directed to pay his dues, if any, to the wife within a reasonable period as may be fixed by the trial court below.
Malay Kumar Basu, J.
These two revisional applications being between the same parties and involving common questions of law and fact have been heard analogously and taken up together for disposal. This single judgment will govern both of them. The C.R.R. 203/02 has been filed by Syed Bazle Kader Siddiki (hereinafter referred to as the Husband) against Manowara Begum. O.P. No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the Wife) and against the State of West Bengal, the O. P. No.2. The C. R. R. 306/02 has been filed by Manowara Begum the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Wife) against Syed Bazle Kader Siddiki, the O. P. No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the Husband) and the State of West Bengal as O. P. No.2. In the C. R. R. 203/02 the case of the petitioner-Husband is that the Wife-Manowara Begum was married by him according to the Muslim Rites on 10th March, 1985 and at the time of the marriage the father of the Wife offered gold ornaments worth of Rs. 60,000/- together with the cash of Rs. 65,000/- and some gold rings and other articles to the Husband. The dower money was settled to the tune of Rs. 10,001/-. Since after the marriage the parties enjoyed their conjugal life for a certain period and the marriage was consummated, but due to some reasons he gave talak to the O. P. No.1-Wife and thus the marital tie between them was dissolved and thereafter the Wife filed an application under section 3(2) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 claiming compensation along with the dower money to the tune of Rs. 144,501/- coupled with a claim for reasonable and fair provisions of maintenance during the Iddat period as well as for the subsequent period. It was alleged by her in that application that this husband used to earn a sum of Rs. 7000/- per month and in addition to that he had earning to the tune of Rs. 3000/- per month from his agricultural land. Her further statement was that she had no income and she was being maintained by her father. The husband contested that application denying all the material allegations. He also took the plea that the parents of the wife by practising fraud upon him gave this O. P. No.1 in marriage with him in stead of their another daughter with whom the proposal for marriage was actually made and from that point of view the registration of marriage became void since the wife did not accept or consent to that marriage with the petitioner-Husband. He gave money and ornaments to the wife as described in the schedule of his written objection and those were not returned by the wife to him and therefore, he took the plea that the said application of the wife under the said Act was liable to be dismissed with cost. According to him the learned Magistrate without property considering the evidence on record passed an order dated 22nd December, 2000 allowing the said Misc. case and wrongly directed him to return 20 to-llas of gold ornaments or its equivalent cash and to pay of Rs. 65,000/-.
2. Being aggrieved by that order of the learned Magistrate the husband preferred a revisional application before the Sessions Judge, Hooghly which was numbered as Criminal Motion No. 34/2001 and it was ultimately heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hooghly and he also dismissed the motion and affirmed the impugned order of the learned Magistrate with the modification that the wife would not be entitled to any allowance to the tune of Rs.1500/- per month since 25th July, 1989 till her remarriage.
3. Being aggrieved thereby again the husband has preferred this revisional application under sections 401/397 read with section 482 of the Cr. P. C. challenging the said order of the court below as erroneous, illegal, improper and liable to be set aside.
4. The wife on the other hand has also preferred a reivisional application being C. R. R. No. 306/02 against the said order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge her case is that as per section 3(2) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
