IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.9129 of 2009 DATE: 01.11.2011 Between: Syed Salemuddin …… Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Public Prosecutor and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.9129 of 2009 ORDER : The petitioner is the divorced husband of the 2nd respondent. There is no dispute about their marriage and subsequent divorce. The 2nd respondent filed M.C. No.2 of 2002 before the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad against the petitioner under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. After enquiry, the Magistrate directed the petitioner herein to pay Rs.5,00,000/- and to return all the Jahez articles and gold ornaments mentioned in the petition, to the 2nd respondent within a month from the date of the order, while refusing other reliefs to the 2nd respondent. As against the said order, both the parties filed two separate revision petitions before V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Hyderabad, by way of R.P.Nos.32 of 2009 and 69 of 2009. By the impugned order, the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge dismissed both the revision petitions and confirmed order passed by the Magistrate. Questioning the same, the husband filed this criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2) It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the orders passed by both the Courts below are based on no evidence. Admittedly there is no documentary proof for giving and taking of dowry as well as the ornaments. It is also contended that for Ex.R-1 notice issued by the petitioner, there was no reply by the 2nd respondent claiming refund of dowry amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and the gold ornaments and Jahez articles listed out in the petition. Both the Courts below took note of the fact of there being no reply from the 2nd respondent for Ex.R-1 notice issued by the petitioner. But, the Courts below took note of the ornaments which the 2nd respondent was wearing at the time of marriage as can be seen from Exs.P-1 to P-23 photographs taken at the time of marriage. Those photographs and also Ex.P-27 compact disc disclosed that the 2nd respondent was wearing those ornaments at the time of marriage. Apart from that, there is Ex.P-24 Jahez articles list which was filed by the 2nd respondent before the Magistrate. The 2nd respondent examined herself as P.W-1 and also examined P.W-2 who is her brother to speak to the giving of dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and also gold ornaments apart from Jahez articles mentioned in the petition at the time of her marriage with the petitioner. Though P.W-2 did not file his passport to show that he went to Dubai and earned money, the lower Court believed evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 and came to the conclusion that dowry amount, gold ornaments and Jahez articles were given at the time of marriage, having regard to status of the parties. Both the Courts below discussed oral evidence and documentary evidence filed by both the parties and considered probabilities of the case and came to the conclusion in favour of the 2nd respondent. Findings of the lower Court are based on assessment of evidence on record. This Court sitting in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot go into the same question of fact and cannot be called upon to re-assess the evidence on record. After exhausting remedy under Section 397 Cr.P.C by way of filing a revision before the Sessions Court, no second revision lies. I am of the opinion that this criminal petition is almost in the nature of a second revision petition against the revisional order passed by the Additional Sessions Court. There are no circumstances to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the Courts below after assessing the evidence. 3) Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J November 1, 2011 ksh