Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/3 vs Zerifa Jannat on 22 August, 2025
Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010109562016
2025:GAU-AS:11216
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./217/2016
ABDUR RAKIB ANSARI
S/O LT. ABDUR RAFIQUE ANSARI R/O VILL- GOURIPUR WARD NO. 4, P.S.
GAURIPUR DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM.
VERSUS
ZERIFA JANNAT
D/O BHALUKDUBI ULUBARI P.O. BHALUKDUBI, PIN - 783101 P.S. and DIST.
GOALPARA, ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D P BORAH, MR. S S DEY,MS. A BHATTACHARJEE,MR. A
ROY,MR. M NATH Advocate for the Respondent : MR. M ISLAM, MR. A F N U MOLLAH,MR. N
UDDIN,MS. S HALAI
:: PRESENT ::
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
For the Petitioner : Mr. D.P. Borah,
Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. N. Uddin,
Advocate.
Date of Hearing : 17.06.2025.
Date of Judgment : 22.08.2025.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
Heard Mr. D.P. Borah, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also
heard Mr. N. Uddin, the learned counsel representing the respondent.
Page No.# 2/3
2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code
challenging the order dated 21.12.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Goalpara in Criminal Revision Petition No.12/2015.
3. The respondent filed a complaint case being M.C.R. Case No.15/2015 in the court
of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara under Section 3 of the Muslim Women
(Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. Therein, the respondent claimed that on
27.08.2012, her marriage with her husband Abdul Rakib Ansari was solemnized. The
mahr was fixed at ₹1,48,101/-. Out of that amount, ₹59,711/- was paid to the
respondent in the form of one necklace valued at ₹50,000/-, one pair of earrings
valued at ₹9,000/- and one nose pin valued at ₹711/-. At the time of marriage, the
father of the respondent also gave gold ornaments, furniture, and other valuable
items.
4. After the marriage, the father of the respondent had to pay an amount of
Rs.1,50,000/- to the petitioner for securing a job. Thereafter, her husband demanded
₹200,000/- and more furniture. On 31.08.2014, the petitioner came to the house of
the father of his wife and demanded money and furniture.
5. Thereafter, a talaknama was executed on 04.09.2014. At that time, the unpaid
mahr/dower was ₹1,48,101/-. The aforesaid amount of ₹1,50,000/- given by the
father of the respondent was also remained unpaid.
6. Narrating the aforesaid facts, the respondent claimed maintenance for the period
of iddat amounting to ₹24,000/- and other unpaid amounts, as mentioned
hereinbefore.
7. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara directed issue of notice
to the present petitioner. He, on the other hand, moved to the court of the learned
Sessions Judge, Goalpara by filing the Criminal Revision Petition No.12/2015
challenging the order directing issue of notice to him.
8. It was pleaded before the Sessions Judge that the present respondent had
Page No.# 3/3
deserted her matrimonial house voluntarily leaving her stridhan. It was also alleged
that she did not come back to take back those articles. The other plea before the
revisional court was that the court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara
did not have the territorial jurisdiction as the cause of action for the case arose at
Gauripur under the territorial jurisdiction of District Dhubri.
9. The learned Sessions Judge had held that the marriage took place at Goalpara
and at the time of divorce, the dower was also not paid. According to the learned
Sessions Court, the contract of dower was essentially agreed at the time of marriage
at Goalpara. Therefore, the court at Goalpara has the jurisdiction to entertain the
prayer of the respondent. The learned Sessions Judge also held that as per Section
462 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wrong place of trial of a case does not vitiate
the trial. For the said reasons, the revision petition was dismissed.
10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.
11. There is no doubt that the marriage of the respondent and the petitioner took
place within the jurisdiction of the district of Goalpara. The contract of dower was
agreed at Goalpara.
12. I am of the considered opinion that the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara had
rightly dismissed the revision petition. There is nothing wrong in the said judgment.
This Court is of the opinion that the present criminal petition under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure is devoid of any merit and stands dismissed accordingly.
The trial court record, if available in this Court, shall be returned. Interim order, if
there be any, shall stand vacated.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
