GUWAHATI, India, Sept. 23 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Aug. 22:

1. Heard Mr. D.P. Borah, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Uddin, the learned counsel representing the respondent.

2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code challenging the order dated 21.12.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara in Criminal Revision Petition No.12/2015.

3. The respondent filed a complaint case being M.C.R. Case No.15/2015 in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. Therein, the respondent claimed that on 27.08.2012, her marriage with her husband Abdul Rakib Ansari was solemnized. The mahr was fixed at Rs 1,48,101/-. Out of that amount, Rs.59,711/- was paid to the respondent in the form of one necklace valued at Rs 50,000/-, one pair of earrings valued at Rs 9,000/- and one nose pin valued at Rs 711/-. At the time of marriage, the father of the respondent also gave gold ornaments, furniture, and other valuable items.

4. After the marriage, the father of the respondent had to pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the petitioner for securing a job. Thereafter, her husband demanded Rs 200,000/- and more furniture. On 31.08.2014, the petitioner came to the house of the father of his wife and demanded money and furniture.

5. Thereafter, a talaknama was executed on 04.09.2014. At that time, the unpaid mahr/dower was Rs 1,48,101/-. The aforesaid amount of Rs 1,50,000/- given by the father of the respondent was also remained unpaid.

6. Narrating the aforesaid facts, the respondent claimed maintenance for the period of iddat amounting to Rs 24,000/- and other unpaid amounts, as mentioned hereinbefore.

7. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara directed issue of notice to the present petitioner. He, on the other hand, moved to the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara by filing the Criminal Revision Petition No.12/2015 challenging the order directing issue of notice to him.

8. It was pleaded before the Sessions Judge that the present respondent had deserted her matrimonial house voluntarily leaving her stridhan. It was also alleged that she did not come back to take back those articles. The other plea before the revisional court was that the court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara did not have the territorial jurisdiction as the cause of action for the case arose at Gauripur under the territorial jurisdiction of District Dhubri.

9. The learned Sessions Judge had held that the marriage took place at Goalpara and at the time of divorce, the dower was also not paid. According to the learned Sessions Court, the contract of dower was essentially agreed at the time of marriage at Goalpara. Therefore, the court at Goalpara has the jurisdiction to entertain the prayer of the respondent. The learned Sessions Judge also held that as per Section 462 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wrong place of trial of a case does not vitiate the trial. For the said reasons, the revision petition was dismissed.

10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.

11. There is no doubt that the marriage of the respondent and the petitioner took place within the jurisdiction of the district of Goalpara. The contract of dower was agreed at Goalpara.

12. I am of the considered opinion that the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara had rightly dismissed the revision petition. There is nothing wrong in the said judgment. This Court is of the opinion that the present criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is devoid of any merit and stands dismissed accordingly. The trial court record, if available in this Court, shall be returned.

Interim order, if there be any, shall stand vacated.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.