HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.1389 OF 2006 Date: 29.12.2009 Between: Fathima Aziza …..Petitioner And: P.Shujavulla Khan and another …..Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.1389 of 2006 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C questioning the order dated 02.12.2005 passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari District, Kakinada in C.R.P. No.74 of 2004 confirming order dated 25.05.2004 of the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kakinada in M.C. No.6 of 2000. 2) There is no dispute about relationship between the parties. The petitioner is divorced wife of the 1st respondent. Talak was pronounced by the 1st respondent on 17.07.1999. The same was informed to the petitioner in reply notice dated 30.10.1999. The petitioner approached the Magistrate’s Court under Section 3(2) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the Act’) against the 1st respondent for return of A, B, C, D schedule properties and also Mehar amount of Rs.5,550/- apart from Rs.1,000/- per month for three month’s during Iddat period and further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards reasonable and fair provision for her maintenance. The 1st respondent opposed the petition contending that the petitioner has taken away all her gold ornaments and that Jahez articles were returned to the petitioner through Navata Transport and that there are no other articles to be handed over by the 1st respondent. There is no dispute that the 1st respondent deposited Rs.5,550/- towards Mehar amount and also Rs.2,100/- towards amount payable for Iddat period of three months with Government Khazi and that the petitioner after filing this petition before the Magistrate had withdrawn the said amounts. Both the Courts below came to the conclusion that there are no articles out of A, B, C, D schedules to be handed over by the 1st respondent to the petitioner. 3) It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that amount of Rs.2,100/- deposited for Iddat period of three months is a pittance and that both the Courts below should have enhanced the said amount to a reasonable amount. What was claimed by the petitioner towards amount payable during Iddat period was Rs.1,000/- per month for three months. The 1st respondent has deposited amount at the rate of Rs.700/- per month for three months totalling Rs.2,100/-. There is no complaint made by the petitioner before both the Courts below that the amount of Rs.700/- per month for Iddat period is not reasonable and fair, when compared to her claim of Rs.1,000/- per month. This Court while entertaining a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C does not see any reason to interfere with quantum of amount payable during Iddat period. 4) It is contended that both the Courts below did not properly appreciate evidence and should have ordered return of gold jewellery. The petitioner claimed not only gold jewellery, but also other articles. It is proved by the 1st respondent through his evidence as R.W-1 and evidence of Navata transport employee as R.W-2 and by filing Ex.R-1 to the affect that he sent articles in seven packings whose total weight was 1.40 tonnes from Anantapur to Kakinada. Even though P.W-2 who is father of the petitioner(P.W-1) denied having received the said articles, ultimately had to accept that Ex.R-1 contains his signature acknowledging receipt of those articles. It shows that the petitioner approached the Magistrate with a false case. In so far as gold jewellery is concerned, it is the 1st respondent’s case that jewellery was with the petitioner herself and that she took back the jewellery while leaving his house. No doubt, 1st respondent as R.W-1 admitted that he pledged gold ornaments of the petitioner with State Bank of India. But, there is no dispute that P.W-2 had discharged the said loan incurred by the 1st respondent on pledge of gold ornaments. It is there in evidence that the petitioner was having a bank locker and that she was operating the same individually and that she closed the same while leaving company of the 1st respondent. Having regard to totality of circumstances, the Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that there are no other articles or jewellery with the 1st respondent to be handed over to the petitioner. 5) With regard to making reasonable and fair provision for maintenance after Iddat period of three months, the petitioner’s counsel placed reliance on Danial Latifi V. Union of India[1]. In the same decision, it was pointed out that two different obligations are created by the Act, one under Section 3 for making reasonable and fair provision for his divorced wife and secondly under Section 4 of the Act for providing future maintenance to the divorced wife in case she is unable to maintain her and remained un-married without going for re- marriage. Therefore, it is open to the petitioner to approach the Magistrate under Section 4 of the Act to claim maintenance from the 1st respondent in case she is unable to maintain herself. That will not clothe her with a right to claim future maintenance under Section 3(2) of the Act. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that there are no grounds for interference in this matter under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6) In the result, the petition is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J December 29, 2009 KSH [1] AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 3958(1)