HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR Crl.P. No. 2591 of 2009 DATED: 28.12.2011 Between: Yaseen Khan and another .. Petitioners And 1. Shahana Begum 2. The State of A.P. .. Respondents O R D E R:- The petitioners herein are respondent Nos.2 and 3 in M.C. No. 7 of 2005 on the file of the Court of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The 1st respondent herein, who is the daughter-in-law of the petitioners, filed the aforesaid Maintenance Case under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection) of Rights on Divorce Act, 1986 against the petitioners and also their son – Mohd Abbas Khan who is the husband of the 1st respondent claiming a sum of Rs.2,16,000/- towards value of Jahez articles and an amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs towards fair provision for her maintenance and value of certain other articles showing them to be of the value of Rs.63,000/- and other amounts which are mentioned in the petition. 2. The learned Magistrate, after considering the evidence let in by both sides, passed order dated 20.01.2009 partly allowing the said M.C. and decreed it directing that the petitioners herein should return the jahez articles mentioned in Ex.P1 - document or in the alternative to pay a sum of Rs.2,16,000/- towards their value. 3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein preferred a revision i.e. R.P. No. 17 of 2009 and that revision was dismissed by V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Hyderabad on 25.03.2009. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have come up with this quash petition. 4. Heard Smt. Barkha, learned counsel representing Sri C.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri N. Gopala Krishna Nair appearing for the 1st respondent. 5. So far as the maintainability of the petition i.e. M.C. No. 7 of 2005 is concerned, nothing is shown by the petitioners to hold that it is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the petitioners only disputed the amounts granted by the learned Magistrate which were confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. It may be noted that the 1st respondent enclosed a list of articles giving their values to the petition filed by her before the learned Magistrate. So far as the list of jahez articles is concerned, it consists of 59 items and the total value of the said items is given as Rs.2,16,000/-. Item No.1 is stated to be Hero Honda Splendor Motorcycle and item No.2 is stated to be gold item and the rest of the items i.e. from 3 to 59 are shown to be furniture items consisting of wooden as well as steel furniture and certain steel utensils and also certain glass items. It should also be noted that burkahs, clothes, shetranji, curtain and old thormas are also included in the list. It should be mentioned here that the learned Magistrate upheld the petitioners’ claim only in respect of jahez articles covered by Ex.P1, but rejected all her other claims. 6. The order of the learned Sessions Judge would show that an argument was advanced before the said Court that some of the items are old cloth items and therefore the value of the jahez articles should have been reduced. The learned Judge rejected the contention holding that though Ex.P1 - list shows certain old items such as clothes and insignificant items, still there was no cross-examination of PW1 on the above aspect regarding the utility of the same, and therefore, that argument cannot be considered. I think, this reasoning of the learned Judge cannot be said to be correct. It may be noted that according to the definition of the word “proved”, “disproved” or “not proved” contained in the Indian Evidence Act, the Court has to consider all the matters before it in deciding whether or not a fact can be “proved” or “not proved” and the expression “all the matters” would include not only the evidence but also certain matters which may be tell tale from the documents or evidence on record. In the present case, Ex.P1 – list is dated 18.03.2001. The case was filed in the year 2005 and the husband of the 1st respondent herein, who was alive by the time of the petition, died during the pendency of it and he could have also dealt with some of the articles and even without the knowledge of his parents, and several articles are also shown to be old. 7. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that having regard to several old clothes and even burkas and other insignificant furniture items, and other insignificant items which are used for the make up of ladies which can be said to have no value as on the date of the petition, the value of articles covered by Ex.P1 can be reduced. The total value of all the items is given as Rs.2,16,000/- in Ex.P1, but it is true that there is no definite evidence regarding the value of the old items and clothes which can be said to have become useless. However, having regard to the fact that this is a family matter and upon hearing both sides, I am of the opinion that the value of Jahez articles can be reduced to Rs.1,80,000/- from the sum of Rs.2,16,000/- shown by the 1st respondent herself under Ex.P1 - list. 8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is partly allowed. The petitioners shall pay this amount of Rs.1,80,000/- to the 1st respondent within 15 days from today, failing which the said amount shall carry interest at 8% p.a. __________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 28.12.2011 bcj