Tazammal Hossain @ Tozommal ... vs Golchehara Begam
2021 Latest Caselaw 5627 Cal

Form J(2)       IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                   Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
                             Appellate Side

Present :
The Hon'ble Justice Bibek Chaudhuri


                      C.R.R. 2081 of 2005

            Tazammal Hossain @ Tozommal Hossain
                            Vs.
                     Golchehara Begam



For the Petitioner     : Mr. Debasish Roy




Heard on                           : 09.11.2021

Judgment On                        : 09.11.2021




Bibek Chaudhuri, J.

An order passed in Misc. Case No.7 of 1994 under Section 3(2)

of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986

passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Arambagh,

Hooghly is under challenge in the instant criminal revision.

The opposite party/husband is the petitioner before this Court.

The grounds of challenging legality, validity and propriety of the

aforesaid interim order are as follows:-

The petitioner divorced his wife/opposite party on 2 nd

December, 1989. According to him, at the time of marriage Den

mohar was fixed at Rs.7001/- and the said amount was paid

immediately after pronouncement of divorce by the petitioner to the

father of the opposite party. It is further alleged by the petitioner

that by passing impugned order the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial

Magistrate directed him to pay a sum of Rs.7,500/- as maintenance

for the Iddat period and Rs.7001/- as Den mohar. The petitioner

was further directed to return the gold ornaments being 'stridhan'

properties to the opposite party. It is contended by the petitioner

that the learned Magistrate failed to appreciate the evidence on

record adduced by the parties at the time of hearing the Misc. Case

No.7 of 1994.

In this regard it is no longer a res integra that the scope of

Revisional Court is very limited. The Revisional Court cannot re-

appreciate the evidence on record adduced by the parties during

trial of the case. It is needless to say that an order under Section

3(2) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act,

1986 is final in nature. The order was passed after the parties laid

evidence. The scope of the Revisional Court is to consider as to

whether there is any error apparent on the face of the order. I

have carefully gone through the impugned order. The learned

Magistrate framed as many as four points for determination of the

dispute between the parties. The opposite party claimed a sum of

Rs.1,00000/- (Rupees one lakh) towards fair and reasonable

provision for her maintenance for post Iddat period. The learned

Magistrate on proper consideration of entire evidence on record

awarded a sum of Rs.7,500/- towards her maintenance. I do not

find any illegality or impropriety in the said order.

In view of above discussion, the instant revision being devoid of

any merit is dismissed.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be

given to the learned advocates for the parties on usual

undertakings.

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)