IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 22ND MAGHA 1930 RPFC.No. 28 of 2005() --------------------- MC.2/2001 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, ATTINGAL .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------------------- ABDUL KHARIM MOULAVI, S/O. SEINULABDHEEN SAHIB, THANDATHRIKATHU PUTHEN- VEEDU,CHAKKAKKONA,KARAKULAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED SRI.S.VIJI SRI.IYPE JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & STATE: ------------------------------------------------ 1. SHYLABEEVI, D/O.MARHOOM SULTHAN PILLAI, ARIFA MANZIL, PALAVILA KURAKKADA, KIZHUVALAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJESH FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P(F.C.) NO. 28 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th day of February, 2009. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Attingal u/Ss. 3 and 4 of the Muslim Woman (Protection of Right on Divorce) Act, 1986. The petitioner is the divorced wife of the respondent and she had claimed return of Rs.50,000/- given as 'Acharam' and an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards the value of Citizen watch presented, return of 30 sovereigns of gold given for the marriage, Rs.50,000/- plus 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments got as presents, then the fair maintenance under the provisions of the Act as well as a reasonable amount during the Idat period. The Court below ordered to realise the value of 30 sovereigns of gold at Rs.1,05,000/-, Rs.50,000/- as 'Acharam', Rs.2,000/- as value of Citizen watch, Rs.11,000/- as a reasonable and fair provisions and maintenance and Rs.3,000/- as maintenance for Idat period. It is against that decision the husband has come up in R.P(F.C.) NO.28 2005 -:2:- revision. In the trial court PWs.1 to 3, CPWs 1 to 3 were examined. Exts.P1 to P4 and D1 were marked. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner strongly contends before me that the case of giving Rs.50,000/- as 'Acharam' is not established by any evidence. The petitioner as well as her brother PW2 and neighbour PW3 had spoken about the 'Acharam' as well as giving of a citizen watch. The brother was employed at gulf country and the only contradiction question brought is with respect to date on which the said ceremony was conducted. When a matrimonial case is being decided the ordinary custom prevailing in the community has also to be viewed in the back ground to analyze the evidence. The revision petitioner herein is a respectable gentleman having control over a certain area as an Imam of a Mosque. He is the religious head with control and influence over the inhabitants of that locality and when such a person gets married giving of some amount as 'Acharam' or presenting a wrist watch for the marriage are some thing which is only usual. The mere denial in toto will only make the case worse and therefore I cannot find any mistake especially in the revisional jurisdiction that too after reading R.P(F.C.) NO.28 2005 -:3:- the evidence of the witnesses that the Court below has committed any illegality or irregularity in appreciating the evidence to arrive at a decision on that point. So the said contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner cannot be accepted. 2. The next question is regarding the value of ornaments. The case of the wife is to the effect that at the time of marriage 30 sovereigns of gold was given and thereafter they had also obtained presentation of Rs.50,000/- as well as 10 sovereigns of gold. Ext.P4 contains two pieces of paper of which one contains the name of Krishnan Nair Jewellery and the other without any heading. It is her case that in order to avoid tax, only a computerized bills is taken and therefore it has to be stated that there is evidence to prove the purchase of gold ornaments. On the contra the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit in the absence of a proper bill, the computerized bill without any description cannot have any evidentiary value. It is true that there is some force in that contention. But whether this paper can be used for the purpose of corroboration is the point which I like to R.P(F.C.) NO.28 2005 -:4:- consider at this stage. At the time of cross-examination of the revision petitioner a photograph was shown where the couple were in their wedding dresses. Though initially he would deny even the factum of having a photograph when the photograph was shown to him he had to admit and in that photograph it is seen that the wife is wearing gold ornaments. So it is nothing but natural that a lady wears gold ornaments given to her at the time of marriage and the photograph taken is an indication or a solid proof regarding the gold ornaments of the lady. Further one of the witnesses to the counter petitioner namely PW3 had admitted that there was some ornaments for her at the time of marriage. So with Ext.P4 bills along with the evidence of photographs and the admission of PW3 with respect to the giving of some ornaments it can be safely arrived that gold ornaments were given at the time of marriage and Ext.P4 series speaks in volume about the same and that was purchased for the purpose of marriage. PW2 had deposed that about 30 sovereigns of gold had been given. So I cannot find any perversity committed by the Court below in analyzing the evidence regarding gold ornaments. But so far as the R.P(F.C.) NO.28 2005 -:5:- presentation of Rs.50,000/- coupled with another 10 sovereigns of gold is concerned that were not proved and therefore the Court was right in rejecting that request. It is at this point the learned counsel for the revision petitioner wants me to look into Ext.P1, a form to be filled at the time of marriage which contains a clause regarding 'Sambhavana' given at the time of marriage. I do not find any mistake therein for the reason that the column does not cover anything with respect to the gold or money given at the time marriage. So that contention also is rejected. 3. Now going to the provisions of fair maintenance, it is settled that in ordinary circumstances the Court fixes an amount per month then multiply it with 60 to arrive at a fixed amount of maintenance. But in this case it can be seen that wife got remarried somewhere in the year 2002 and therefore the Court had taken into consideration only up to that time. The Court has fixed only an amount of Rs.500/- per month as fair and reasonable maintenance and had awarded Rs.11,000/-. By any stretch of imagination it cannot be also said o be on the higher side. So far as the amount during the Idat period is concerned the Court has R.P(F.C.) NO.28 2005 -:6:- only awarded Rs.3,000/- for three months which also cannot be said to be excessive. The Court has only given an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards the value of citizen watch which also does not appear to be on the higher side and therefore from the materials available and on the analysis of the evidence would show that the Court below has arrived at a decision only in the right perspective which does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or perversity that calls for interference under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore this revision petition lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-