IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4490 of 2008 Between: Smt. Anwar Jahan … Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another. … Respondents This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4490 of 2008 ORDER:- 1. The petitioner, after divorce from the second respondent, filed the petition before the Magistrate under Section 3 (d) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 for certain reliefs. After enquiry, the Magistrate directed the second respondent to pay Do Dinar Sharai Mojyal amount of Rs.1,500/-, Jode-ki-Rakham of Rs.1,500/-, maintenance towards iddath period of Rs.3,000/- and also cost of Jahez articles amounting to Rs.1,02,401/-. The second respondent filed revision petition before the Sessions Judge against the said order. The Additional Sessions Judge passed the impugned order confirming all the amounts except with regard to Jahez articles. Even with regard to gold and silver ornaments or articles are concerned, the revisional Court granted their value of Rs.25,439/-, as per the value mentioned by the petitioner only. But, in respect of other house hold Jahez articles, the revisional Court directed return of the articles in spicie and not its value. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that she is entitled for its value. When the second respondent brought all the articles to the lower Court for their return, the petitioner refused to receive the same claiming their value. After using the articles during the period of their subsistence of marriage, now the petitioner cannot claim value of the articles, as if they are new articles. The revisional Court pointed out that the petitioner, who is the divorced wife, is entitled for return of articles only and not value of the articles. The question of granting value of articles arises only in case the second respondent fails to return the articles. In this case, the second respondent was ready to return the articles and brought the said articles to the lower Court for handing over the same to the petitioner, but the petitioner refused to receive the same. In those circumstances, the lower Court ordered return of Jahez articles item Nos.1 to 3, 12 to 34, 36, 39, 43, 45 to 49, 51 to 71 to the petitioner in spicie. There is absolutely no illegality in the order passed by the lower Court. 3. Hence, the criminal petition is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Date: 15.12.2011 ES