Sections 3 and 5
|
Family Court has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the suit for
maintenance of the parties
irrespective of their faith— In the instant case both the parties are
members of Hindu faith according to whose customs there is no provision of
divorce. The trial court decreed the suit for past and future maintenance
which both the High Court Division and the Appellate Division upheld. Jibon
Sharma (Sree) Vs. Sree Siibasini Sharrna and another 15 MLR (2010) (AD)
167.
|
Jibon Sharma (Sree) Vs. Sree Siibasini Sharrna and another |
15 MLR (AD) 167 |
Section 4
|
For realization of dower Family Court established under Section 4 of Family
Court Ordinance, 1985 is the right forum:
Since the land in question is the portion of dower as paid or purportedly
transferred in favour of the plaintiff by the father of her husband, this
Court is of the view that the forum as chosen by the plaintiff to realize
such dower was not the correct forum under the law of the land. As our
country has special law, namely Family Court Ordinance, 1985, the
provisions of which will have effect irrespective of any contrary
provisions in any other law including the Registration Act, 1908 and the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the plaintiff should have taken recourse to
the provisions of the said special law and should have filed a suit for
dower under the provisions of the said Ordinance before the Family Court
established under Section 4 of the said Ordinance. …Sadrul Huq being dead
his heirs & ors. Vs. Farhana Firdousi & anr, (Civil), 16 SCOB [2022] HCD
62
When plaintiff chooses wrong forum, he/she should be given a chance to
withdraw the said suit even at the appellate stage to file the same before
the right forum:
Since the plaintiff in the present case has chosen a wrong forum, namely
filed a partition suit before a civil Court having territorial
jurisdiction, we are of the view that the plaintiff should be given a
chance to withdraw the said suit at this appellate stage to file the same
before the Family Court, as established by the Family Court Ordinance,
1985, for seeking a decree of dower in respect of the said property. Since
we have already held that the land in question can be treated as dower, we
are of the view that the plaintiff should be allowed to withdraw the suit
at this appellate stage with a permission to file the same before the
correct forum, namely the Family Court established under the Family Court
Ordinance, 1985. …Sadrul Huq being dead his heirs & ors. Vs. Farhana
Firdousi & anr, (Civil), 16 SCOB [2022] HCD 62
....View Full Judgment
|
Sadrul Huq being dead his heirs & ors. Vs. Farhana Firdousi & anr |
16 SCOB [2022] HCD 62 |
Section 5
|
In view of the advance by way of ijtihad made in the right directions
within the bounds of sunni Law, the enunciation on past maintenance made in
1964 by the Lahore High Court being affirmed twice by the Pakistan Supreme
Court in this respect should not be overlooked or discarded. The High Court
Division was therefore wrong in denying past maintenance to the appellant
on the ground of lack of prior agreement.
Jamila Khatun vs Rustom Ali 48 DLR (AD) 110.
|
Jamila Khatun vs Rustom Ali |
48 DLR (AD) 110 |
Section 5
|
Section 3 of the Ordinance of 1985 only means that if there are provisions
in the Ordinance which are different from or are in conflict with the
provisions of any other law then the provisions of the said Ordinance will
prevail. Section 3 does not debar the application of Limitation Act to suit
filed under the Ordinance of 1985. The fact that the Ordinance of 1985
speaks of "Suit", "plaint", "Written statement", "decree", etc. clearly
attracts the Limitation Act under section 29(2) thereof.
Jamila Khatun vs Rustom Ali 48 DLR (AD) 110.
|
Jamila Khatun vs Rustom Ali |
48 DLR (AD) 110 |
Section 5
|
Residuary Article 102 of the First Schedule, providing for a period of
limitation of 6 years from the time when the right to sue accrues in
respect of a suit for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere
in the First Schedule will be applicable to a suit for maintenance under
Ordinance of 1985.
Jamila Khatun vs Rustom Ali 48 DLR (AD) 110.
|
Jamila Khatun vs Rustom Ali |
48 DLR (AD) 110 |
Section 5
|
Under section 5 of the Ordinance of 1985 it is not only the wife who can
file a suit in a Family Court for her own maintenance but also for the
maintenance of her child. It is not correct to say that all the six
subjects mentioned in section 5 relate to suits exclusively between husband
and wife.
Jamila Khatun vs Rustom Ali 48 DLR (AD) 110.
|
Jamila Khatun vs Rustom Ali |
48 DLR (AD) 110 |
Section 5 and
|
Section 10 of the Muslim Family Law Ordinance, 1961:
In this regard, we have examined the provisions of the Family Court
Ordinance, 1985. It appears from the relevant provisions of the said
Ordinance that the same is a special law by which a special Court, namely
Family Court, has been established and that the provisions of the said law
have been given overriding effect over any other law found to be
inconsistent. As per Section 5 of the said Ordinance, the jurisdiction of
the Family Court has been conferred relating to or arising out of all or
any of the following matters, namely (a) dissolution of marriage (b)
restitution of conjugal rights (c) dower (d) maintenance (e) guardianship
and custody of children. Therefore, it appears that a wife is entitled to
file a suit claiming a decree of dower before the Family Court established
under the Family Court Ordinance, 1985. The term ‘dower’ has not been
defined either by the Muslim Family Law Ordinance, 1961 or by the Family
Court Ordinance, 1985. However, Section 10 of the Muslim Family Law
Ordinance, 1961 provides that where no details about mode of payment of
dower are specified in the nikahnama for the marriage contract, the entire
amount of dower shall be presumed to be payable on demand. …Sadrul Huq
being dead his heirs & ors. Vs. Farhana Firdousi & anr, (Civil), 16 SCOB
[2022] HCD 62
Form of dower and who may undertake to pay the dower in Islamic law:
From the above opinion of the said islamic scholars, it appears that the
landed property, being a valid property under Islam, may take the form of
dower under Islamic principles, and anyone, including the father of the
husband, may undertake to pay or transfer such dower. Therefore, it appears
that the landed property in question was rightly taken to be a form of
portion of dower to be transferred in favour of the plaintiff and that the
father of the husband, namely defendant No.1, was allowed under the Islamic
law to undertake or to transfer the said land in lieu of certain portion of
the said dower money in favour of his daughter-in- law. …Sadrul Huq being
dead his heirs & ors. Vs. Farhana Firdousi & anr, (Civil), 16 SCOB [2022]
HCD 62
....View Full Judgment
|
Sadrul Huq being dead his heirs & ors. Vs. Farhana Firdousi & anr |
16 SCOB [2022] HCD 62 |
Section 5
|
Children in easy circumstances under Mohammadan Law are bound to maintain
their poor parents, although the latter may be able to earn something for
themselves. These poor parents may also file a suit in Family Court for
maintenance from their opulent children. Similarly, poor or disabled
relatives, even servants of the wife, can maintain a suit for maintenance
under the Ordinance of 1985 under circumstances enjoined by Mohammadan
Law.
Jamila Khatun vs Rustom Ali 48 DLR (AD) 110.
|
Jamila Khatun vs Rustom Ali |
48 DLR (AD) 110 |
Section 5(d)
|
Whatever be the meaning of Mataa it is certainly not maintenance as can be
claimed within the meaning of maintenance under the Family Courts
Ordinance.
Hefzur Rahman (Md) vs Shamsun Nahar Begum and another 51 DLR (AD) 172.
|
Hefzur Rahman (Md) vs Shamsun Nahar Begum and another |
51 DLR (AD) 172 |
Section 5(d)
|
There is a clear direction in respect of a pregnant woman who has been
divorced and the direction is to bear her expenses till she has delivered.
In the case of such a woman her period of lddat will be till delivery. It
is apparent that the maintenance has been related to the period of lddat.
Hefzur Rahman (Md) vs Shamsun Nahar Begum 51 DLR (AD) 172.
|
Hefzur Rahman (Md) vs Shamsun Nahar Begum |
51 DLR (AD) 172 |
Section 5
|
The parents fight their children’s custody cases–
The children shall be brought by their father to the office of the
Department of Social Services, Chattogram every Friday and Saturday and he
shall leave them there in the custody of Md. Shahidul Islam, Deputy
Director, Department of Social Services, Chattogram. Ms. Mahjareen Binta
Gaffar, Clinical Psychologist shall visit the children for the purpose of
continuing with their counselling, which shall be for a period of two hours
every Friday and Saturday afternoon at 3:00 pm. Rumana Foiz, the mother of
the children shall have the right to visit the children at the office of
the Department of Social Services, Chattogram during the said period. We
make it clear that the father of the children will not be present in or
near the office of the Department of Social Services at that time when the
children are in that office. .....Mainul Islam Chowdhury =VS= Rumana Foiz,
(Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 358]
....View Full Judgment
|
Mainul Islam Chowdhury =VS= Rumana Foiz |
5 LM (AD) 358 |
Section 5
|
Liability of the husband to pay the dower and maintenance to his wife on
the dissolution of marriage—
When the marriage is admittedly dissolved by talak at the instance of the
husband and the husband failed to establish the payment of the dower as
claimed, the wife is legally entitled to realise the dower money as well as
the maintenance during the period of her iddat. Shahid Ha mid Vs. Niliifar
Momtaz 14 MLR (2009) (AD) 33.
|
Shahid Ha mid Vs. Niliifar Momtaz |
14 MLR (AD) 33 |
Section 5
|
Custody of Minor–
Considering the facts and circumstances- especially the facts that minor
S.A.M.M. Zohaibuddin has already attained the age of almost 7 years and he
is now residing along with his ailing elder brother in his father’s house
and is being taken good care of by his father, grandfather and grandmother,
we are inclined to allow the prayer of the leavepetitioner to retain the
custody of his minor son S.A.M.M. Zohaibuddin till disposal of Family Suit.
.....S.A.M.M. Mahbubuddin =VS= Laila Fatema, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM
(AD) 468]
....View Full Judgment
|
S.A.M.M. Mahbubuddin =VS= Laila Fatema |
3 LM (AD) 468 |
Section 5, 16(3)
|
The Family Courts Ordinance, 1985
Section 5, 16(3) r/w
Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC)
Articles 7, 12, 20 and 21 r/w
Bangladesh Citizenship (Temporary Provisions) Order, 1972
Section 2
Custody of the minor children– Custody of the minor children,
particularly in this case in which the detainees are 9 & 11 year old girl
children and their mother is a Japanese well settled doctor and their
father being a well settled person is a Bangladeshi by birth and also a
citizen of America, the paramount consideration is the welfare of the
minors and not the legal right of this and that particular party. The
reasons stated, pass the following order:-
i) 1. Nakano Jasmine Malika @ Jasmine Malika Sharif 2. Nakano Laila Lina @
Laila Lina Sharif aged about 11(eleven) years and 9(nine) years
respectively in the custody of writ respondent No. 5 Imran Sharif is
declared to be unlawful and they are being held in his custody in an
unlawful manner.
ii) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and interest of the
Children, the Children namely 1. Nakano Jasmine Malika @ Jasmine Malika
Sharif and 2. Nakano Laila Lina @ Laila Lina Sharif will not be taken out
of the jurisdiction of this Court save and except with leave of this
court.
iii) It is directed that the detainees shall remain in custody of their
mother-Eriko Nakano pending disposal of the Family Suit No. 247 of 2021 at
present, pending in the Court of Assistant Judge, Second Additional Court,
Family Court, Dhaka.
iv) The Family Court concerned is directed to conclude the Family Suit No.
247 of 2021 within 3(three) months from the date of receipt of this order.
v) It is made clear that the observations which have been made by us are
only for the limited purpose of engaging summary inquiry for consideration
in the petition of Habeas corpus and will be of no assistance to either
party in the custody proceedings pending in the Family Court which indeed
will be decided on its own merits.
vi) The impugned judgment and order of the High Court Division is hereby
set aside.
vii) The father will have the right to visit the children at a convenient
agreed time, place and period.
viii) The leave petition is accordingly disposed of.
ix) The Contempt Petition No. 31 of 2021 is accordingly redundant.
.....Eriko Nakano, Japan =VS= Ministry of Home Affairs, BD, (Civil),
2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 222]
....View Full Judgment
|
Eriko Nakano, Japan =VS= Ministry of Home Affairs, Bangladesh |
12 LM (AD) 222 |
Section 5 (e)
|
Custody of the child– At any time in the future either of the parents of
the child shall be at liberty to move the appropriate Court for an
appropriate order in respect of the custody of/access to the child in the
light of prevailing circumstances at that time and the Court shall be at
liberty to entertain such application and to pass necessary order in
respect of the child’s custody keeping in view the best interests of the
child giving the child an opportunity to express his views.
The observation of the learned Judge of the High Court Division that
“violation of any terms of the solenama by any party shall be treated as
contempt of Court,” being unwarranted and beyond jurisdiction, is hereby
expunged.
We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and order of the
High Court Division. This petition is dismissed with the above observations
without, however, any order as to costs. ...Anika Ali =VS= Rezwanul Ahsan,
(Civil), 2020 [9 LM (AD) 363]
....View Full Judgment
|
Anika Ali =VS= Rezwanul Ahsan |
9 LM (AD) 363 |
Sections 5 and 16(3)
|
Family Courts Ordinance, 1985
Sections 5 and 16(3)
Convention of the Rights of the Child
Articles 9 and 12
Both the parties to the marriage filed Suits in the Family Courts with
their own claims and narrated events that led to the dissolution of the
marriage. Both the family suits were heard simultaneously and decreed in
terms of a solenama filed in each of the family suit. The terms and
conditions in each of the solenama are essentially the same. The parties
have agreed to the amount of dower money, maintenance for the wife and
maintenance for the child. They also agreed, though by implication, that
the child, who was at that time about two years and three months old,
should remain in the custody of his mother and a schedule of access/visits
was agreed upon whereby before his admission in school the child would
visit his father's house on two days in every week between 10:00 a.m. and
10:00 p.m. Since both the parties to the ill-fated marriage amicably agreed
to abide by certain terms and conditions with regard to the payment of
dower, maintenance and custody of the child, as embodied in the solenama,
there is no illegality in the essence of the impugned judgment and order.
Since the payment of maintenance for the child is a continuous process, the
door of the Courts is always open to the child's mother to ensure the
payment of the maintenance for the child. Equally, the father has the right
of access as mentioned in the solenama. Anika Ali, daughter of late Kazi
Haider Ali -Vs- Rezwanul Ahsan, son of Monjurul Ahsan Munshi 1 ALR (AD)38
|
Anika Ali, daughter of late Kazi Haider Ali -Vs- Rezwanul Ahsan, son of Monjurul Ahsan Munshi |
1 ALR (AD) 38 |
Section 6(4)
|
In the name of granting general or other relief the Court cannot and would
not mount any surprise on the defendant and make him liable for something
which does not arise out of the plaint and, as such, he had no occasion to
answer the same. This is merely an extension of the principle of natural
justice (ATM Afzal CJ).
Hefzur Rahman (Md) vs Shamsun Nahar Begum and another 51 DLR (AD) 172.
|
Hefzur Rahman (Md) vs Shamsun Nahar Begum and another |
51 DLR (AD) 172 |
Section 6(1)
|
Place of institution of suit—Within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction the parties reside or last resided together —Parties where
reside or last resided together—can be gone into at the time of trial of
the suit if a proper issue is raised on the point.
Abdul Matlib Gaznvi Vs.Toiyab Ali and others, 12 BLD (AD) 30 -
|
Abdul Matlib Gaznvi Vs.Toiyab Ali and others, |
12 BLD (AD) 30 |
Section 6(4)(g)
|
read with
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VII Rule 7
Per A.T.M. Afzal, CJ: The law requires that the relief must be specifically
claimed either simply or in the alternative. It is true that general or
other relief which the Court may think just may be granted although not
specifically asked for. But the essential conditions are that the averments
in the plaint must justify such relief and the defendant must get an
opportunity to contest such relief. In the name of granting general or
other relief the court cannot and would not mount any surprise on the
defendant make liable for something which does not arise out of the plaint
and as such he had no occasion to answer the same. This is merely an
extension of the principle of natural justice.
The defendant was admittedly absent at the hearing of the revision before
the High Court Division. The worst that could happen to him was that the
Rule could have been discharged for default or on merit and the appellate
judgment and decree would have been maintained in that case. But if the
learned Judges entertained some bright and innovative ideas about some
verses of the Quran hitherto not known for saddling the defendant with more
liability than the plaintiff had claimed and received, then was it not
necessary and lot elementary that the defendant ought to have been put on
notice again? It was like enhancing the sentence of an accused in exercise
of revisional jurisdiction in a criminal case. Could any tribunal do it
without putting him on prior notice? This is exactly what has been done by
the High Court Division which to say the least, was unfortunate.
Md. Hefzur Rahman Vs. Shamsun Nahar Begum and another, 19 BLD (AD) 27.
|
Md. Hefzur Rahman Vs. Shamsun Nahar Begum and another, |
19 BLD (AD) 27 |
Section 6(4)(g) and 17
|
read with
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section—115
Per Mustafa Kamal, J: Section 6(4)(g) of the Ordinance provides that the
plaint shall contain inter alia the relief which the plaintiff claims. An
appeal lies under section 17 of the Ordinance to the Court of District
Judge. The High Court Division interferes in revision under section 115 of
the Code of Civil Procedure when the lower appellate Court appears to have
committed an error of law resulting in an error in the decision occasioning
failure of justice. In such a case the High Court Division may make such
order in the case as it thinks fit. The High Court Division did not say in
the impugned judgment that the lower appellate Court committed any error of
law on the point of maintenance. Giving the plaintiffs a substantive relief
beyond the frame of the suit is beyond the jurisdiction of the revisional
court and is a sad case of judicial excess defying all judicial norms and
trampling the judicial procedure.
Md. Hefzur Rahman Vs. Shamsun Nahar Begum and another, 19 BLD (AD) 27.
|
Md. Hefzur Rahman Vs. Shamsun Nahar Begum and another, |
19 BLD (AD) 27 |
Section 7(1)(3)(5)
|
The Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 when interpreted in the light of
Articles 8 and 8(1A) of the Constitution preserves iddat as laid down in
the Holy Qur–an : (Mustafa Kamal J).
Hefzur Rahman (Md) vs Shamsun Nahar Begum 51 DLR (AD) 172.
|
Hefzur Rahman (Md) vs Shamsun Nahar Begum |
51 DLR (AD) 172 |
Section 9(6)
|
It appears that both the courts after proper consideration of the evidence
on record rightly opined that since the petitioner himself received the
summons so without filing any appeal against the experte judgment and
decree he cannot get any relief. ...Md. Bazlur Rahman Vs Shamsun Nahar &
ors., (Civil), 7 SCOB [2016] HCD 61
....View Full Judgment
|
Md. Bazlur Rahman Vs Shamsun Nahar & ors. |
7 SCOB [2016] HCD 61 |
Section 16(4) & (5)
|
Call it the executing Court or the trial Court, it is nontheless the Family
Court which passed the decree and its power to allow installments even
after passing of the decree is undoubted.
Resima Sultana vs Khaez Ahmed Mojumder 49 DLR (AD) 57.
|
Resima Sultana vs Khaez Ahmed Mojumder |
49 DLR (AD) 57 |
Section 16(3)
|
In the execution proceeding whether the subsequent execution against the
judgment- debtor is maintainable or not?
From the materials on record it was found that on the own seeking of the
petitioner 40 installments were granted but the petitioner did not pay a
single installment. The execution was started for one installment only in
respect of Tk. 13,000/- and odd whereas the total decree was for Tk. three
lac and odd and as such the entire decretal amount remained unpaid. As a
matter of fact, the execution was for one installment and there is no legal
bar to proceeding with the executing under section 16(3) of the Ordinance
for the unpaid amount. The entire amount having remained unpaid. there is
no legal bar to proceeding with the subsequent execution.
Md. Serajul Islam Vs Maksuda Akhter (Navy) Advocate, 20 BLD (AD) 84.
|
Md. Serajul Islam Vs Maksuda Akhter (Navy) Advocate, |
20 BLD (AD) 84 |
Section 16(5)
|
Enforcement of decrees
Under the general law the trial Court may allow payment of the installments
even after the passing of the decree under certain circumstances. Under
sub-section (5) of Section 16 of the Ordinance it is permissible for the
Court to allow installments even after the passing of the decree. The
difference between the general provisions and those provided in section
16(5) of the Ordinance is that whereas under the former the power is hedged
by certain conditions including one of limitation. But under sub-section
(5) of section 16 of the Ordinance there is no such condition except that
the power should be exercised by way of proper judicial discretion. This
power is wider under subsection (5) of section 16 of the Ordinance and it
may be exercised either on the application of a party or even suo motu so
long as the decree remains unsatisfied. A Family Court therefore has the
power to allow installments as it deems fit even after the passing of the
decree.
Reshma Sultana Vs Khaez Ahmed Mojumder, 17 BLD (AD) 72.
|
Reshma Sultana Vs Khaez Ahmed Mojumder, |
17 BLD (AD) 72 |
Section 16A
|
Best interests of the child to keep the opportunity open for her permanent
residency of the USA– Appellate Division is of the view that it is in the
best interests of the child to keep the opportunity open for her permanent
residency and perhaps in due course citizenship of the USA. From the papers
produced before us it appears that the minor girl is required to return to
the USA within one year of her arrival in Bangladesh. As noted earlier, she
last entered Bangladesh on 09.02.2021. In such circumstances, she has ample
time to file a fresh application before the Family Court for permission to
travel to the USA in order to maintain her immigrant status there. When
such an application is filed, the Family Court shall consider the same
keeping in mind the best interests of the child. At the same time the Court
is also required to consider the right of the child’s father to have
access to the child. The Family Court shall pass an order allowing the
father access to his daughter for a duration which the Court feels would
satisfy the best interests of the child.
The order passed by the High Court Division dated 03.06.2021 is set side
and in view of its earlier order dated 29.11.2020, the Rule issued in Civil
Revision No.1971 of 2020 is disposed of and the Family Appeal No.114 of
2020 is dismissed. The application for permission to travel abroad dated
23.08.2020 is now redundant. The plaintiff, if so advised, is at liberty to
file any further application for permission to take the minor child to the
USA for the purpose of retaining her immigration status for a limited
period. ...Serajus Saleheen =VS= Shareen Rahman, (Civil), 2021(2) [11 LM
(AD) 1]
....View Full Judgment
|
Serajus Saleheen =VS= Shareen Rahman |
11 LM (AD) 1 |
Section 20
|
Abatement of a legal proceeding challenging validity of the notifications
constituting reserved forest known as Attia Forest—There is no scope for
challenging the validity of notification of 1972 under the Forest Act (XVI
of 1972) constituting reserved forest after the promulgation of the Attia
Forest (Protection) Ordinance (XXXIII of 1982)- All judgments, decrees or
orders in respect of Attia Forest shall have no force and all suits,
appeals and other legal proceedings chal— lenging constitution of Attia
Reserved Forest shall abate-Independently of the Attia Forest (Protection)
Ordinance, the Notification of 1972 constituting reserved forest known as
Attia Forest is valid.
Bangladesh Vs. Abdul Baset Mia, 6 BLD (AD) 62.
|
Bangladesh Vs. Abdul Baset Mia, |
6 BLD (AD) 62 |
Valid marriage–
|
Principles of Mohammedan Law
The Family Courts Ordinance, 1985
Valid marriage– Where there has been prolonged and continuous
cohabitation as husband and wife, in the absence of direct proof a
presumption arises that there was a valid marriage– The Family Court on
assessment of the evidence of Shadrul Islam (P.W.2), Madu Mia (P.W.3),
Swapan (P.W.4) and Babul Mia (P.W.5) came to the definite finding that the
respondent married the appellant and that they lived as husband and wife,
and decreed the suit. The Court of appeal below affirmed the judgment. A
single Bench of the High Court Division in exercise of revisional
jurisdiction reversed the judgments of the courts below and dismissed the
suit.
Once the marriage is consummated and the parties have cohabited, the
contractual defect is removed; and the marriage is declared to be
legitimate.
There are unanimous views of the jurists and authorities that even in the
absence of formal proof of a valid marriage, a marriage can be presumed by
evidence of conduct and reputation, and the question of consummation forms
often an important element in the status of valid marriage.
Where there has been prolonged and continuous cohabitation as husband and
wife, in the absence of direct proof a presumption arises that there was a
valid marriage. The law permits no specific ceremony for the contractual
performance of a marriage: and no religions rites are necessary for
contracting a valid marriage. There are even opinions that a marriage may
be constituted without any ceremonial and even in the absence of direct
proof, indirect proof might suffice.
Therefore, the decision of the High Court Division is based on a
misconception of the basic principles of Mohammedan Law and thus the
interference of the judgments of the Courts below is an error of law
apparent on the face of the record. The evidence on record sufficiently
proved that there was existence of legal marriage between the appellant and
respondent. The appeal is, allowed with costs of Tk.10,000/-. ...Momtaz
Begum(Mst.) =VS= Anowar Hossain, (Civil), 2020 [9 LM (AD) 153]
....View Full Judgment
|
Momtaz Begum(Mst.) =VS= Anowar Hossain |
9 LM (AD) 153 |