N. L. Tibrewal, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed by the husband, being aggrieved against the order dated 4. 12. 87 of Additional Munsif Judicial Magistrate No. 2 (South) Kota, and the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Kota dated 4. 2. 89 passed in criminal revision No. 3/88 in a proceeding under section 125 Cr. P. C. as well as section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act.
(2.) IN brief, the facts are that the non-petitioner (wife) filed an application under section 125 Cr. P. C for grant of maintenance allowance in the court of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 2 (South) Kota alleging therein that she was married to the petitioner in accordance to Muslim Law on 3. 5. 83 at Kota, but she was deserted by her husband (petitioner) on 10. 10. 83 i. e. just after five months of the marriage. She claimed maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. The husband filed a reply to the aforesaid, application on 11. 7. 86. In the said reply he pleaded, inter alia, that he was unemployed while the non-petitioner-wife was employed in a private school. In the said reply he made a declaration thrice about the divorce. In view of the aforesaid declaration of divorce, the non-petitioner -wife moved an application under section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. In that application she denied that she was gainfully employed as a teacher in a private school. She further pleaded that after divorce on 11. 7. 1986 the husband (petitioner) has not paid the amount of 'mehar' and he also did not return the ornaments and other articles of dowry which is in his possession as trustee. The non-petitioner has estimated the cost of these ornaments and articles as Rs. 70,000/ -. The wife further claimed 'mehar' which is amounting Rs. 10,000/- in cash and eight 'asharfies' of gold. In reply to the said application the husband (petitioner) had taken the plea that 'mehar' was abandoned by the wife. He denied that he was in possession of ornaments or other articles of dowry. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the wife Anjun Afsha as PW 1, as well as of five witnesses examined by her as PW 2 to PW 6. The petitioner also appeared in the Witness Box as DW 1 and examined witnesses as DW 2 and DW 3. The learned Trial Magistrate, after recording the evidence and hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, held that the wife (non-petitioner) was entitled to Rs. 600/- as maintenance allowance for the period of iddat at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month and also Rs. 10,000/- and the market value of eight 'asharfies' as settled in Mehar at the time of marriage. The learned Magistrate further directed the petitioner to make the payment within a month from the date of order i. e. 4. 12. 87.
(3.) AGGRIEVED against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a revision petition which was heard and disposed of by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Kota. The revision was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 4. 2. 89. Hence this petition under section 482 Cr. P. C. has been fild by the petitioner challenging the aforesaid orders/judgments of the learned courts below. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record as well as the orders/judgments of the courts below. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised only one point that the contract of 'mehar' at the time of marriage is illegal, as gold asharfy could not be possessed at the time of contract in view of the Gold Control Act, and the said contract is also not enforceable in law because its performance cannot be made, in asmuchas 'asharfy' was neither available at the time when the settlement of Mehar was made nor the same is available now. ;