JUDGMENT
Sadhan Kumar Gupta, J.
1. This revisional application has been filed under Sections 401 and 482 of the Cr. PC against the judgment and order dated 16.2.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dakshin Dinajpur at Balurghat in Criminal Revisional Application No. 35 of 2003 whereby he affirmed the order dated 26.6.2003 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balurghat passed in MR 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 15.6.2001. After the dismissal of the said maintenance case filed under Section 125, Cr. PC, 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 Kabilnama on the letterhead 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 aggrieved 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 by, 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.
4. I have heard the submissions of the learned Advocates for both the sides. It appears that there is no dispute that there was a marriage in between the parties and the said marriage was dissolved by a Talaknama. As per law, the wife is entitled to get the Den Mohar amount and the maintenance amount during her iddat period from her husband. The husband did not dispute the amount of maintenance which was granted by both the Courts in favour of the wife during her iddat period. Only dispute, so far as the present hearing is concerned, is in respect of the amount of Den Mohar. According to the husband, it was Rs. 8,101/- while the wife has claimed that it was Rs. 81,000/-. I have already pointed out that both Courts below accepted the contention of the wife that the amount was fixed at Rs. 81,000/-. Let us now see whether the Courts below were justified in coming to such a conclusion. I have perused the judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate as well as the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is the admitted position that the husband has claimed that there was no written document in respect of the Den Mohar amount. The wife has produced a document to show that the husband agreed to pay Rs. 81,000/-towards Den Mohar. But that document has not been relied upon by the learned Courts below. It appears that both the Courts below were of the opinion that considering the status and financial position of the parties, it was not unreasonable to hold that the amount of Den Mohar was fixed at Rs. 81,000/-. In support of this presumption, the learned Magistrate, has given sufficient reasoning. Said reasoning, as given by the learned Magistrate, has been accepted by the learned Sessions Judge. So, it appears that there is concurrent finding of both the Courts below in respect of the question in dispute. The reasoning, as given by the Courts below, cannot be set aside as unreasonable and unjustified. In support of her claim of Den Mohar, the wife has adduced sufficient oral evidence which appeared to both the Courts to be trustworthy. On the contrary the husband in fact has failed to adduce any cogent evidence in support of his contention that, the amount of Den Mohar was fixed at Rs. 8,101/- and not Rs. 81,000/-. In absence of any sufficient counter evidence, the learned Courts below were perfectly justified in holding in favour of the claim of the wife that the amount was fixed at Rs. 81,000/ – towards Den Mohar. It is the settled position that the concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below should not be intervened by a Revisional Court unless and until it is shown that the said finding is based on no material at all and it is perverse in nature. From the materials on record, it appears to me that both the Courts below rightly came to the conclusion in respect of the amount in question, as fixed towards Den Mohar, in between the parties and as such I hold that there is no scope for interference into the said finding, by this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.
5. Considering all these things, I am of opinion that there is no merit in this revisional application and the same is liable to be rejected.
6. In the result, the revisional application is dismissed on contest. The order, as passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revisional Application No. 35 of 2003 is confirmed. GRAN 94 of 2005 is accordingly disposed of. Send a copy of the judgment to the Court below at once.