High Court Division · Civil Revisional Jurisdiction
Sheikh Md. Nurullah v Ummeh Kulsum Tanzila
Civil Revision 4192/2024 · Decided 20 May 2026
The wife sued her husband in the Family Court, Companygonj, Noakhali for dower of Tk. 10,00,000 and past and iddat maintenance, stating that she had divorced him by affidavit before a Notary Public. The husband applied under section 7(2) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 for action against her for failing to give notice of divorce to the Chairman under section 7(1), and for rejection of the plaint. The Family Court rejected the application and fixed the suit for trial, and the District Judge, Noakhali summarily dismissed his appeal. On his unopposed revision, the High Court Division held that the dates of marriage, divorce and service of notice were disputed facts to be proved at trial. It also held that the offence under section 7(2) is criminal and cannot be tried by a civil court, so the plaint could not be rejected under it. The Rule was discharged and the trial court directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.
- Q1
Whether a wife's suit for dower and maintenance could be rejected at a preliminary stage on an application under section 7(2) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 alleging non-compliance with the notice requirement in section 7(1).
- Section 7(1) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 is mandatory, and a talaq is not effective until ninety days after notice is delivered to the Chairman.
- Questions as to the dates of marriage, divorce, service of notice and when the cause of action arose depend on disputed facts and cannot be decided summarily without evidence.
- The offence punishable under section 7(2) of the Ordinance is a criminal offence which a civil court has no jurisdiction to try.
- A plaint cannot be rejected under section 7(2) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, and an application seeking such rejection is not maintainable.
- If contravention of section 7(1) is proved at trial, the aggrieved person may seek recourse in an appropriate court having jurisdiction.
Moreover, the offence punishable under section 7(2) of the Ordinance is a criminal offence and the civil court has no jurisdiction to try it.
In the court’s own words.
Civil Revision 4192/2024, as published by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. 6 pages, with paragraph numbers for citing.
In the Supreme Court of Bangladesh
High Court Division
(Civil Revisional Jurisdiction)
Present:
Mr. Justice Md. Riaz Uddin Khan
Civil Revision No. 4192 of 2024
IN THE MATTER OF :
An application under section 115(1) of the Code of
Civil Procedure
-And-
In the Matter of:
Sheikh Md. Nurullah
… Defendant-Petitioner
Versus
Ummeh Kulsum Tanzila
… Plaintiff-Opposite party
Mr. Abdur Rouf, Advocate
… For the petitioner
None
… For the opposite party
Judgment on: 20.05.2026
Md. Riaz Uddin Khan, J:
1Rule was issued calling upon the opposite party to show cause as to why the Judgment and Order dated 27.06.2024 passed by the District Judge, Noakhali in Family Appeal No.19 of 2024 summarily dismissing the appeal and thereby affirming the Order No.09 dated 16.05.2024 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Companygonj, Noakhali in Family Suit No.55 of 2023 should not be set aside and/or such other or further order or orders should not be passed as to this Court may deem fit and appropriate.
2At the time of issuance of Rule the operation of the judgment and order dated 27.06.2024 passed by the Court of appeal below dismissing the appeal and affirming the order No.09 dated 16.05.2024 passed by
the Family Court was stayed initially for a period of 03(three) months which was extended time to time.
3Succinct facts for disposal of this Rule are that the opposite party as plaintiff filed Family Suit No.55 of 2023 before the Family Court, Companygonj, Noakhali on 29.08.2023 praying for dower and maintenance on the contention that marriage was solemnized between the plaintiff and defendant on 14.08.2019 as per Muslim law fixing dower of Tk- 1,000,000/- (ten lac). However, within couple of years disagreement ensued for which the plaintiff divorced the defendant on 02.04.2023 through affidavit in front of a Notary Public and on the same date she claimed her dower and maintenance for both past and iddat period but the defendant refused to pay hence the suit.
4The defendant appeared and filed written statement on 09.05.2024 denying all the material allegations made in the plaint. At one stage of the suit the defendant filed an application under section 7(2) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 to take action against the plaintiff and further claimed for rejection of the plaint. After hearing the parties, the trial court rejected the application by his order No.09 dated 16.05.2024 on the finding that the cause of action is to be proved by the plaintiff and fixed the matter for trail.
5Against the said dated 16.05.2024 the defendant filed Family Appeal No.19 of 2024 before the District Judge, Noakhali who heard the matter on the point of admissibility and after hearing the learned advocate for the appellant dismissed the appeal in limine by his impugned judgment and order dated 27.06.2024 on the
finding that the trial court did not commit any illegality in rejecting the application.
6Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 27.06.2024 the defendant filed the instant civil revision before this Court and obtained Rule and interim order as stated at the very outset.
7Mr. Abdur Rouf, the learned advocate appearing for the defendant-petitioner submits that the plaintiff did not serve any notice of divorce upon the Chairman of the Arbitration Council as per section 7(1) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 and hence it is required to take action against her under section 7(2) of the Ordinance for non-compliance of section 7(1) of the Ordinance. The learned advocate then submits that as per claim of the plaintiff on 20.08.2023 served notice of divorce upon the defendant-husband by registered post but filed the instant Family Suit on 29.08.2023 praying for dower and maintenance both past and for Iddat period during the subsistence of the marriage as per section 7(3) of the Ordinance and as such the plaint is liable to be rejected.
8No one appears to oppose the Rule.
9I have heard the learned advocate for the defendant-petitioner, perused the application along with the annexures. I have also examined the order of the trial court as well as the judgment and order of the Court of appeal below.
10The plaintiff-opposite party filed the suit for dower and maintenance, both past and for Iddat period against her husband, the defendant-petitioner. The plaintiff claimed in the plaint that she divorced the defendant on 02.04.2023 by swearing affidavit before a
Notary Public. The suit is filed on 29.08.2023. The plaintiff did not state when she served notice upon the Chairman of the Arbitration Council along with the defendant. The suit is filed clearly after more than 4 (four) months of alleged date of pronouncement of divorce (talaq). The suit is still in preliminary stage and evidence is yet to be taken. At this stage of the suit the defendant filed an application under section 7(2) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 for taking action against the plaintiff for alleged violation of the mandatory provision of section 7(1) of the said Ordinance and also for rejection of the plaint.
11Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 reads as follows:
12Talaq- 7.(1) Any man who wishes to divorce his wife shall, as soon as may be after the pronouncement of talaq in any form whatsoever, give the Chairman notice in writing of his having done so, and shall supply a copy thereof to the wife.
13(2) Whoever contravenes the provisions of subsection (1) shall be punishable with simple imprisonment for term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to ten thousand taka or with both.
14(3) Save as provided in sub-Section (5), a Talaq unless revoked earlier, expressly or otherwise, shall not be effective until the expiration of ninety days from the day on which notice under Sub-section (1) is delivered to chairman.
15(4) Within thirty days of the receipt of notice under sub-section (1), the Chairman shall constitute an Arbitration Council for the purpose of bringing about a
reconciliation between the parties, and the Arbitration Council shall take all steps necessary to bring about such reconciliation.
16(5) If the wife be pregnant at the time talaq is pronounce, talaq shall not be effective until the period mentioned in sub-section (3) or the pregnancy, whichever be later, ends.
17(6) Nothing shall debar a wife whose marriage has been terminated by talaq effective under this section from re-marrying the same husband, without an intervening marriage with a third-person, unless such termination is for the third time so effective.
18From plain reading of the section it appears that if anyone wishes to divorce his wife shall give the Chairman notice in writing as soon as the pronouncement of talaq and shall supply a copy thereof to the wife. This provision is mandatory and whoever contravenes the provision shall be punishable with imprisonment or with fine. Talaq shall not be effective until the expiration of ninety days from the day on which notice under Sub-section (1) is delivered to chairman.
19In the present suit we have already noticed that it is still in a preliminary stage. The date of marriage, divorce and serving notice of divorce etcetera are yet to be proved by the plaintiff. It appears that the questions raised by the defendant are questions of law highly dependent on disputed questions of facts which cannot be decided summarily without taking evidence. Whether the divorce was held on the date as claimed by the plaintiff is true or not and whether the plaintiff served notice of divorce as per section 7(1) of the Ordinance and when the cause of
action of the suit arose etcetera are to be decided by the trial court after examination of the witness and evidence. Moreover, the offence punishable under section 7(2) of the Ordinance is a criminal offence and the civil court has no jurisdiction to try it. If after conclusion of the trial of the instant suit, it is proved that the plaintiff contravened the provision of section 7(1) of the Ordinance then the aggrieved person may have a cause to take appropriate legal recourse in an appropriate court having jurisdiction. The plaint cannot be rejected under section 7(2) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The application itself was not maintainable and rightly rejected by the courts below. In that view of the matter the trial court did not commit any illegality or error of law which has been found correct by the Court of appeal below. The learned advocate for the petitioner could not raise any legal question before this court regarding the commission of error by the courts below which warrants interference by this court. I do not find any reason to interfere. Hence, the Rule being devoid of merit destined to fail and I am constrained to discharge the Rule.
In the result, the Rule is discharged. However,
20without any order as to cost.
The order of stay passed earlier by this Court
21stands vacated. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously as practicable.
Communicate the judgment and order at once.
22Ziaul Karim Bench Officer
Related summaries.
From the record to your case.
Our advocates appear before both divisions of the Supreme Court. These are the practice areas that handle matters like this one.
- Supreme Court practice in BangladeshSlips, mentioning, cause lists and appearances→
- Case JourneysHow a case moves through the courts, step by step→
- Limitation and appeal deadline calculatorKnow your last day to file→
- Curative petitions in BangladeshFinality, article 104 and the case for reform→
- Constitution guideEvery article and amendment, animated→
- Bangladesh legal glossaryBangla and English legal terms, explained→
