IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/30TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 CRMC.No. 4305 of 2003 ( ) CRRP.112/1997 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-II, PALAKKAD MC.32/1991 of J.M.F.C.- I, OTTAPPALAM PETITIONER/REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER RAZIYA, D/O.UMMER, RESIDING AT KANNAERI, MARAYAMANGALAM AMSOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.R.RAJA RAJA VARMA SMT.M.R.VALSA SRI.SREEKANTH.K.R RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER: 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. MUHAMMEDALI, S/O.MUHAMMEDKUTTY, RESIDING AT KOORIKATTIL, MUNNURKODE, ELEDATH MADAMBA AMSOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJESH KORMATH SMT.MEENA.A. SMT.SANJANA R.NAIR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-12-2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CRMC.No. 4305 of 2003 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A : A COPY OF THE ORDER IN M.C.NO.32/1991 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE J.F.C.M, OTTAPALAM DTD.29.7.1997 ANNEXURE B: COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.R.P.NO.112/1997 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT NO.II, PALAKKAD DTD.29.6.2002. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE ab K.HARILAL, J ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.4305 of 2003 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of December, 2011 O R D E R The petitioner is the divorced wife of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner had earlier been married to one Veeran and subsequently he divorced the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner married the 2nd respondent. But later, the 2nd respondent also divorced the petitioner. In the above pathetic circumstances the petitioner filed a claim under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act. The petitioner claimed Rs.9,000/- towards Iddat expenses for three months. A sum of Rs.75,000/- was claimed towards fair provision for future maintenance. 21 sovereigns of gold or its equivalent value of Rs.63,000/- was also claimed from the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner the 2nd respondent is employed in Gulf country and earning a salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. 2. The trial court rejected the claim totally on a finding that the petitioner is not a legally wedded wife of the 2nd respondent. However, in revision the revisional court set aside that finding and allowed Rs.3,000/- towards Iddat expenses and Crl.M.C. No.4305 of 2003 2 Rs.15,000/- towards fair provision for future maintenance. But the claim in regard to 21 sovereigns of gold was disallowed totally. 3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed challenging Annexure B order passed by the revisional court to the extent it disallows the claim of the petitioner for 21 sovereigns of gold or its value of Rs.63,000/-. The further prayer is for a direction to return 21 sovereigns of gold or its equivalent value of Rs.63,000/- to the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the lower revisional court erred in disallowing the claim for 21 sovereigns of gold received by the petitioner from her parents. The lower revisional court was wholly unjustified in disallowing the claim merely stating that the evidence adduced is not sufficient. 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the Bar and the impugned orders, petition and deposition of the petitioner. The only question to be considered in this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is whether the petitioner is entitled to get 21 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its value of Rs.63,000/- from the Crl.M.C. No.4305 of 2003 3 2nd respondent. On going by the judgment passed by the learned Magistrate Court and the revisional court it could be seen that no evidence had been adduced to prove the claim of 21 sovereigns of gold ornaments. Therefore the petitioner miserably failed to prove the entrustment of 21 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the 2nd respondent. Unless the entrustment is proved, the petitioner is not entitled to get back 21 sovereigns of gold ornaments from the 2nd respondent. Thus it could be seen that the court below concurrently and rightly found that the petitioner is not entitled to get back 21 sovereigns of gold ornaments or Rs.63,000/- as its value. There is no evidence on record to hold otherwise. 6. Considering the lack of evidence, I am not inclined to interfere with the judgment passed by the court below. Hence this Criminal Miscellaneous Case stands dismissed. K.HARILAL JUDGE ab