IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

             Present:

Mr. Justice S M Kuddus Zaman

CIVIL REVISION NO.1629 OF 2023

In the matter of:

An application under Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

And

Md. Arifur Rahman

... Petitioner

-Versus-

Mst. Nupur Aktar

... Opposite party

None appears

.... For the petitioner.

Mr. Md. Mostafa with

Mr. Mohammad Masud Parvez, Advocates

…. For the opposite party.

Heard on 31.10.2024.

Judgment on 03.11.2024.

This Rule was issued calling upon the opposite party to show cause as to why the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2023 passed by the learned District Judge, Jhalakathi in Family Appeal No.03 of 2022 and thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2021 passed by  the  Bicharak,  Rajapur  Family  Court  and  Senior  Assistant  Judge, Rajapur Court, Jhalakathi in Family Suit No.34 of 2018 decreeing the suit should not be set aside and or pass such other or further order or orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

Facts in short are that opposite party as plaintiff instituted above Family Suit for recovery of her unpaid dower of Taka 1,50,000/- and maintenance alleging that the defendant married her on 02.06.2007 by a

registered  kabinnama  and  subsequently  subjected  the  plaintiff  to physical  and  psychological  torture  on  demand  of  dowry.  Due  to plaintiffs refusal to pay dowry the defendant divorced the plaintiff on 30.06.2018.

Defendant  contested  above  suit  by  filing  a  written  statement alleging that the dower of the plaintiff was fixed at Taka 50,000/- and the same was fully paid but in collusion with the marriage register the plaintiff has fraudulently enhanced the dower to Taka 2,00,000/-. The plaintiff  having  involved  in  immoral  and  antisocial  activities  the defendant has divorced her on 30.06.2018. The defendant purchased sanchoypatra of Taka 40,000/- in the name of the plaintiff which may be utilized for payment of her maintenance.

At trial plaintiff and defendant examined one witness each and the document of the plaintiff was marked as Exhibit No.1 and that of the defendant was marked as Exhibit No.Ka.

On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and materials on record the learned Judge of the Family Court decreed the suit  and  granted  plaintiff  unpaid  dower  of  Taka  1,50,000/-  and maintenance at the rate of Taka 3,500/- from 19.03.2018.

Being aggrieved by above judgment and decree of the Family Court  the  defendant  preferred  Family  Appeal  No.03  of  2022  to  the learned  District  Judge,  Jhalakathi  who  dismissed  above  appeal  and affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

Being aggrieved by above judgment and decree of the Court of appeal below above appellant as petitioner moved to this Court and obtained this Rule.     

No one appears on behalf of the petitioner when the Rule was taken up for hearing although this revision appeared in the list for hearing on several dates.

Mr.  Md.  Mostafa,  learned  Advocate  for  the  opposite  party submits that the registered kabinnama of the plaintiff was produced at trial which was marked as Exhibit No.1. Above document shows that the dower of the plaintiff was fixed at Taka 2,00,000/- and only Taka 50,000/-  was  paid.  The  defendant  did  not  pay  maintenance  to  the plaintiff since 19.03.2018 and the learned Judge of the Family Court gave her maintenance from above date at the rate of Taka 3,500/- which is reasonable and bearable for the defendant. On consideration of above evidence on record the learned District Judge has rightly dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree of the Family Court which calls for interference.  

I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates for the opposite party and carefully examined all materials on record.

It  is  admitted  that  the  defendant  married  the  plaintiff  on 02.06.2007 by a registered kabinnama and above marriage came to one end by talak on 30.06.2018 at the instance of the defendant.

Plaintiff herself gave evidence as PW1 and produced and proved registered kabinanama dated 02.06.2007 which was marked as Exhibit No.1. Above document shows that the dower of the plaintiff was fixed at  Taka  2,00,000/-  and  Taka  50,00,000/-  was  realized.  As  such,  the learned  Judges  of  the  Court  of  Appeal  below  rightly  held  that  the plaintiff was entitled to get Taka 1,50,000-/ as unpaid dower.

The  learned  Judges  of  the  Courts  below  have  granted  past maintenance to the plaintiff from 19.03.2018. But the plaintiff did not mention in her evidence as PW1 that she was living separately from the defendant  from  19.03.2018  and  the  defendant  did  not  pay  her maintenance  from  above  date.  As  such  the  plaintiff  has  failed  to substantiate her claim for past maintenance by legal evidence.

The  monthly  maintenance  of  the  plaintiff  at  the  rate  of  Taka 3,500/- as was determined by the learned Judges of the Courts below appears to be reasonable taking into account the existing market price and other expenses of a divorcee woman living separately and alone. Since the defendant divorced the plaintiff on 30.06.2018 the plaintiff is entitled to get maintenance at the rate of Taka 3,5000/- only for his iddat period which amounts to Taka 11,900/-.

In  above  view  of the  facts and  circumstances  of  the case  and evidence of the record I am of the view that the ends of the justice of will be  met  if  the  impugned  judgment  and  decree  is  modified  and above suit is decreed for Taka 1,61,900/ (Taka 1,50,000/- for unpaid dower and Taka 11,900/- for maintenance instead of Tk.1,72,400/-).

The judgment and decree dated 05.01.2023 passed by the learned District Judge, Jhalakathi in Family Appeal No.03 of 2022 affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2021 passed by the Bicharak, Rajapur Family Court and Senior Assistant Judge, Rajapur Court, Jhalakathi in Family  Suit  No.34  of  2018  is  upheld  subject  to  modification  of  the decree to Taka 1,61,900/- instead of Taka 1,92,400/-.

This Rule is accordingly disposed of.

Send down the lower Courts records immediately.

MD. MASUDUR RAHMAN     BENCH OFFICER