JUDGMENT
B.J. Shethna, J.
1. An application was filed by the respondent-wife against the petitioner-husband under Section 3(1)(2) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1936 (for short ‘the Act’) before the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class No. 2, Bhilwara wherein it was stated that she got married on 10.11.1990 as per the customs prevailing in the Muslims. At the time of marriage, Mehar amount of Rs. 21,000/- was fixed. However, there were no cordial relations between them, therefore, she had to file an application seeking divorce from her husband. During the pendency of that application-for divorce, her husband gave Talaq (Divorce) on 1.6.1995 and in Talaqnama, it was deliberately mentioned by her husband that his wife proposed “Khulla” and in lieu thereof, she has let go “Mehar amount” whereas she had never asked for “Khulla” nor she has allowed to let go the Mehar amount. Her husband was Junior Fitter Attendant and drawing salary of Rs. 4,000/- per month. His brother and father were doing business separately, therefore, Rs. 1,000/- be paid for Iddat period along with the Mehar amount of Rs. 21,000/- and other belongings be ordered to be paid to her along with costs and interest. The said application was opposed by her husband by stating that his wife had asked for Khulla and let go Mehar amount, therefore, she was not entitled for the same.
2. After considering the evidence led by the respective parties before him, the learned Magistrate accepted the application filed by the wife and ordered the husband-present petitioner to pay Mehar amount of Rs. 21,000/- and to pay Rs. 333/- per month during the Iddat period and also to return the belongings, failing which he will have to pay Rs. 50,000/- each for jewellery and other belongings in all Rs. 1 lac.
3. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid impugned order dated 6.4.1999 passed by the Magistrate by way of Revision No. 21/1999 before the Sessions Court which was partly accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bhilwara by his judgment and order dated 22.1.2001 whereby he set aside the order passed by the Magistrate ordering the amount to pay Rs. 50,000/- each for not returning jewellery and her belongings. However, rest of the order regarding payment of Mehar amount of Rs. 21,000/- with Rs. 333/- per month during the Iddat period and the order regarding returning jewellery and other belongings given at the time or marriage in dowry ways maintained. This has been challenged by the petitioner husband in this misc. petition before this Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C.
4. Learned Counsel Mr. Agha for the petitioner raised only one submission regarding payment of Mehar amount of Rs. 21,000/- on the ground that once Khulla is proposed and divorce is given by the husband on that terms offered by his wife and the Mehar amount was already let go by his wife, then she cannot claim the said amount of Mehar amount before the Court. He, therefore, submitted that both the Courts below have committed grave error in awarding Mehar amount in spite of the fact that Khulla was proposed by his wife and she has let go the Mehar amount as specifically mentioned in Talaqnama. He also submitted that both the Courts have committed an error in awarding Mehar amount on the wrong assumption that even if his wife has proposed Khulla and let go the Mehar amount as per Talaqnama, then also under Section 3 of the Act, she is entitled for the Mehar amount.
5. Before appreciating the aforesaid contention of learned Counsel Mr. Agha on merits, I must state that there is a bar of second revision under Section 399(3), Cr. P.C., therefore, with a view to circumvent the same, this petition is filed under Section 482, Cr. P.C. Ordinarily, this Court would not entertain such petition unless and until it is pointed out that by passing the impugned orders, the Courts below have committed grave error which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. Having carefully gone through the orders passed by the Courts below, I am fully convinced that this is not a case where it can be said that while passing the impugned orders, the Courts below have committed gross error resulting in miscarriage of justice, therefore, on this ground alone, this petition is required to be dismissed.
6. Even on merits, the aforesaid submission made by learned Counsel Mr. Agha has no substance. It is true that both the Courts below have held that in view of Section 3 of the Act, she would be entitled for Mehar amount even if the wife had proposed Khulla and let go the Mehar amount. However, I am not inclined to give much importance to this finding because on facts of this case, after appreciating the evidence, both the Courts below concurrently found against the petitioner that the respondent wife has never proposed Khulla and has never let go the Mehar amount. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the Courts below have committed any error in awarding Mehar amount of Rs. 21,000/-.
7. Before parting, I must state that the learned Additional Sessions Judge in revision has modified the order passed by the learned Magistrate of awarding Rs. 50,000/- each for jewellery as well as other belongings of the wife which she had brought in dowry at the time of marriage by maintaining the order of the learned Magistrate to return the said jewellery and other belongings to wife. The said order is not challenged at present by the respondent wife, therefore, I do not want to express any opinion about it. But, prima facie I am of the opinion that when the order of the Trial Court regarding return of jewellery and other belongings to wife was found to be legal and sustained by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in revision, then there was no reason to modify’ the order passed by the learned Magistrate to pay Rs. 50,000/- each for jewellery and other belongings.
8. In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is dismissed.
Stay petition is also dismissed.
