High Court Division · Civil Revisional Jurisdiction
Md. Mizanur Rahman v Mosammot Rasheda Khatun and another
Civil Revision 4266/2015 · Decided 16 July 2026
The wife and the couple's daughter sued the husband in the Family Court, Bhurungamari, Kurigram for dower and maintenance, saying the dower was Tk. 1,29,999 and that he had driven them out. The husband said the dower was Tk. 29,999 and that the marriage had ended by a registered khula talaq, after which he paid her dower and iddat maintenance. The Family Court decreed the suit, treating the whole dower as payable on demand under section 10 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, and the Joint District Judge, 1st Court, Kurigram affirmed. The High Court Division agreed that the khula talaq was not proved, so the marriage still subsisted. But because column 14 of the wife's nikahnama recorded prompt dower of Tk. 250, which column 15 showed had been paid, section 10 did not apply. Deferred dower is payable only on dissolution of marriage, so the wife was not entitled to it. The Rule was made absolute in part and the maintenance decree for both plaintiffs was maintained.
- Q1
Whether a wife whose marriage subsists is entitled to the whole dower under section 10 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 where the nikahnama specifies a small prompt dower that has been paid.
- Q2
Whether the husband proved that the marriage had been dissolved by a khula talaq.
- Prompt dower is payable on demand after marriage, while deferred dower is payable only on dissolution of the marriage by death or divorce.
- Section 10 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 makes the entire dower payable on demand only where no details of the mode of payment are specified in the nikahnama.
- Where the nikahnama records a prompt dower that has been paid, the wife of a subsisting marriage cannot claim the remaining deferred dower.
- Notice to the Chairman under section 7(1) of the Ordinance, read with sections 7(2) and 7(3), is mandatory for any form of talaq, and the marriage continues until talaq becomes effective in accordance with law.
- The concurrent finding that the claimed khula talaq was not proved was not disturbed, so the wife and daughter remained entitled to maintenance as decreed.
The plaintiff no.1, wife is not entitled to deferred dower money as the marriage has not been dissolved in accordance with law, and prompt dower of Tk-250/- has already been paid.
In the court’s own words.
Civil Revision 4266/2015, as published by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. 12 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. 4266 of 2015
IN THE MATTER OF :
An application under section 115(1) of the Code of
Civil Procedure
-And-
In the Matter of:
Md. Mizanur Rahman
…Appellant-Petitioner
Versus
Mosammot Rasheda Khatun and another
…Defendant-Opposite parties
Mr. Md. Taufiqul Islam, Advocate with
Mr. Md. Masum Billah, Advocate
… For the petitioner
Ms. Israt Jahan, Advocate with
Ms. Jobaida Parvin, Advocate
… For the Opposite Parties
Judgment on: 16.07.2026
Md. Riaz Uddin Khan, J:
1At the instance of the defendant Rule was issued calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.05.2015 passed by the Joint District Judge, 1st Court, Kurigram in Family Appeal No. 08 of 2014 affirming the judgment and decree dated 17.04.2014 passed by the Senior Assistant Judge, Family Court, Bhurungamari, Kurigram in Family Suit No. 63 of 2011 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 proper.
2At the time of issuance of Rule the judgment and decree passed by the court of appeal below affirming the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court was stayed
for a period of 06(six) months initially which was extended time to time.
3Facts for disposal of this Rule in a nutshell are that the plaintiff-opposite parties filed Family Suit No.63 of 2011 before the Family Court Bhurungamari, Kurigram for dower and maintenance contending inter alia that marriage was solemnized between the defendant-petitioner and the plaintiff No.1 on 03.08.2002 as per Muslim Law fixing a dower of Tk-1,29,999/- and during their wedlock a daughter (defendant No.2) was born. At one stage of their marriage life the defendant drove away the plaintiff No. 1 from his house with her minor daughter on 20.09.2011 asking her to bring Tk-50,000/- from her father. In this regard plaintiff No. 1 filed a criminal case against the defendant which was ultimately set at rest with compromise. However, the defendant again drove away her for which the plaintiff filed the instant suit for maintenance and dower. The defendant appeared before the trial court and filed written statement denying all the material allegations made in the plaint contending inter alia that the marriage was solemnized between the parties on 03.08.2002 fixing the dower as Tk-29,999/- and not Tk-1,29,999/-. However, as it was impossible for both of them to continue their conjugal life they agreed to dissolution of marriage and in this regard a Khula talaq was held which was registered in the Nika Registry Office and the plaintiff received Tk-31,000/including her dower and maintenance for iddat period. The defendant further claimed that he was ready to pay maintenance of defendant No.2, his daughter.
4During trial both parties adduced witnesses and produced some documents to prove their respective case. After conclusion of trial the trial court decreed the suit by the judgment and decree dated 17.04.2014 against which the defendant filed Family Appeal No. 08 of 2014 before the District Judge, Kurigram which was ultimately heard by the
Joint District Judge, Kurigram who after hearing the appeal dismissed the same by the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.05.2015 affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.
5Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree dated 28.05.2015 the defendant filed the instant civil revision and obtained the Rule and order of stay as stated at the very outset.
6Mr. Md. Taufiqul Islam, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that both the courts below failed to appreciate the legal position that according to Muslim Law the plaintiff cannot be entitled to full dower without the dissolution of marriage. Both the courts below concurrently found that the marriage was subsisting but asked the defendant to pay the full dower as such both the judgments are liable to be set aside.
7The learned advocate then submits that the nikahnama filed by the plaintiff shows that dower was fixed at Tk-1,29,999/- and in the column-14 it is mentioned that the muajjal (prompt) and Muajjol (deferred) at Tk-250/- and in the next column, i.e column no.15 it is found that Tk- 250/- has already been paid. So, if the marriage is subsisting then the plaintiff cannot claim the rest of the amount which is deferred dower.
8The learned advocate next submits that the defendant filed the certified copy of his divorce paper (khula talaq) which was registered in the nikah registry and an official of the District Registrar deposed before the court in support of the registration of divorce. Though both the courts below disbelieved the documents produced by the defendants but as per Muslim Law the talaq has been executed from the date of knowledge of such talaq by the wife. Since a compromise talaq (khula talaq) was executed there was no need to give a notice under section 7(1) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The learned
advocate finally submits that the talaq was executed and the defendant No.1 is entitled he get the maintenance of only the 3(three) months of her iddat period from her knowledge of divorce.
9On the other hand Ms. Israt Jahan, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite parties submits that the plaintiff by producing the original nikahnama before the court proved that dower money was fixed at Tk-1,29,999/-. On the other hand the nikanama filed by the defendant was a forged one which has been proved by the nikah Registrar himself.
10The learned advocate then submits that the divorce has not been executed or came into effect as the provision of Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 was not complied with. According to the learned advocate provision of Section 7(1) of the Ordinance is mandatory provision and in contravention of that mandatory provision no talaq can be effected. The defendant could not prove the so-called Khula talaq and both the courts disbelieved the Khula talaq as claimed by the husband, hence, the marriage is still subsisting. However, she conceded that as the marriage is subsisting the defendant No.1, the wife, is not entitled to the deferred dower but submits that as in the nikahnama the prompt and deferred dower was not fixed, the wife is entitled to entire dower as per section 10 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961.
11I have heard the learned advocates for both the parties, perused the revision application. I have also examined the lower court records including the plaint, written statement, depositions of both parties and exhibited documents. I have also carefully examined the judgments passed by the courts below.
12During trial both parties produced certified copy of the Nikahnama: The Nikahnama (exhibit-1) produced by the plaintiff shows that the dower was fixed as Tk-129,999/-
while the Nikahnama produced by the defendant shows the dower as Tk-29,999/. It appears from the judgment of the trial court that the trial court did not believe the Nikahnama filed by the defendant but believed the Nikahnama filed by the plaintiff and fixed dower money as Tk- 1,29,999/-. The trial court further disbelieved the documents filed by the defendant regarding the talaq-etoufiz observing that the khulanama produced by the defendant in question is not reliable. The trial court further observed that since there is no separate mentioning of prompt and deferred dower in the Nikahnama (exhibit-1) as such the entire dower should be treated as prompt one as per section 10 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961.
13It appears from the judgment of the court of appeal below that the appellate court concurrent with the findings of the trial court regarding the fixation of dower as contained in the Nikahnama filed by the plaintiff but the appellate court differed with the finding of the trial court in relation to following procedure of section 7 and 8 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 that in case of declaring talaq in the form Khula or Mubarat there is no need to serve notice as provided under section 7(1) of the Ordinance. However, the appellate court also disbelieved the claim of Khula talaq as claimed by the defendant.
14In the case of Hamira Bibi Vs. Zubaida Bibi reported in (1916) 43 I.A. 294 Lord Parker of Waddington observed:
Dower is an essential incident under the
Mussulman law to the status of marriage; to
such an extent this is so that when it is
unspecified at the time of marriage is
contracted the law declares that it must be
adjudged on definite principles. Regarded as
a consideration for the marriage, it, in
theory, payable before consummation; but the
law allows its division into two parts, one
of which is called ‘prompt’, payable before
the wife can be called upon to enter the
conjugal domicil; the other ‘deferred’,
payable on the dissolution of the contract by
the death of either of the parties or by
divorce.
15This definition of dower was acclaimed all over the world where the Muslim law is applicable. It was also cited in the case of Syed Sabir Husain Vs. Farzand Husan reported in (1937) 65 I.A. 119. From the above celebrated decision it is clear that prompt dower is payable immediately after the marriage, if demanded by the wife; while the deferred dower is payable on the dissolution of the marriage or on the death of either party. But a difficulty arises when it is not settled mentioning the amount of prompt and deferred. In Hanafi law (applicable in the present case) the whole of the dower may be promptly awarded in special circumstances but in the absence of proof of custom, the presumption is that one-half is prompt, and the other half deferred, and portion may be changed to suit particular cases. Usually the dower is fixed at the time of marriage and the Kazi or Nikah Registrar enters the amount in the register as well as in the Nikahnama or Kabinnama. In our country there is a statutory Form of Nikahnama and in Column No.13 is for mentioning the total amount of dower; Column No.14 is for mentioning of prompt and deferred dower while Column No.15 is for mentioning whether at the time of marriage any part of the dower is paid or not. Section 10 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 deals with mode of payment of dower which reads as follows:
10. Dower- Where no details about the mode of
payment of dower are specified in the Nikah
nama, or the marriage contract, the entire
amount of the dower shall be presumed to be
payable on demand.
16In the instant case there is admitted position by both the parties regarding the marriage which was solemnized on 03.08.2002. The 1st dispute between the parties is regarding the amount of dower. Since in the Nikahnama (exhibit-1) produced by the plaintiff in Column no.13 the total dower is mentioned as Tk-1,29,999/-. On examination of that Nikahnama it appears from column No.14 wherein the prompt and deferred dower is mentioned as Tk- 250/- whereas in column No.15 it has been mentioned that Tk-250/- has been paid through ornament. Since in the column no.14 there is a mention of Tk-250/-, it should be treated as prompt dower which has already been paid.
17As per Hanafi school of Muslim Law the wife can claim prompt dower at any time and as per Shia law the wife can demand the full dower both prompt and deferred but as per the school of Sunni all the Islamic jurists in a single view opined that the deferred dower can only be claimed through dissolution of marriage either by death or by talaq or divorce. In this case the plaintiff claimed that the marriage is still in subsistence hence she cannot claim the entire dower money. It is true that as per section 10 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance if there is no mention of prompt and deferred dower the entire dower will be payable on demand. We have already noticed that on examination of exhibit-1, the Nikahnama it is found in Column No.14 prompt dower was mentioned as Tk-250/- and as such the finding of both the courts in this regard is not correct. In that view of the case the plaintiff was not entitled to get the entire dower money as per section 10 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961.
18Now on the question of divorce or talaq: whether was effected as claimed by the defendant. The defendant filed the copy of the divorce paper registered with a
different Nikah registry not where the marriage was registered on the contention that a Khula talaq was held on compromise in presence of both parties. Even it was neither registered where the wife resides nor the husband himself. Both the courts below did not believe that the khula talaq was held between the parties as the plaintiff clearly claimed in her plaint that her signature was obtained in some blank papers and this averment was made, though by an amendment, but it is before the filing of the written statement, hence both the courts below rightly believed that no khula talaq as claimed by the defendant was held.
19Be that as it may, in traditional Muslim Law there are different forms of talaq or dissolution of marriage which has also been recognized by section 8 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The legislature has described a procedural law how to communicate the pronouncement of any form of talaq by the husband to the wife and the legislature also constituted authority namely arbitration council for reconciliation between the parties regarding the talaq. At this juncture it would be profitable if we refer sections 7 and 8 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 which run as follows:
Section- 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.
(2) Whoever contravenes the provisions of
sub-section (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.
(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 the Chairman.
(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.
(5) If the wife be pregnant at the time talaq
is pronounced, talaq shall not be effective
until the period mentioned in sub-section (3)
or the pregnancy, whichever be later, ends.
(6) Nothing shall debar a wife whose marriage
has been terminated by talaq effective under
this section from remarrying the same
husband, without an intervening marriage with
a third-person, unless such termination is
for the third time so effective.
Section- 8. Where the right to divorce has
been duly delegated to the wife and she
wishes to exercise that right, or where any
of the parties to a marriage wishes to
dissolve the marriage otherwise than by
talaq, the provisions of section 7 shall,
mutatis mutandis and so far as applicable,
apply.
20From plain reading of the above provisions it is clear that as per section 7(1) after the pronouncement of talaq, in any form, the husband has to give notice in writing to the Chairman of such pronouncement and a copy of the same shall supply to the wife. The pronouncement of talaq by the husband in contravention of section 7(1) it is
a punishable offence under section 7(2) of the Ordinance. Talaq or divorced is a form of dissolution of marriage and according to traditional Muslim Law husband can talaq or divorce his wife at any time without assigning any reason and the husband even can delegate his power of talaq to his wife or any third person without diminishing his power of pronouncement of talaq. The core question is whether there was any intention of talaq: if the language is so clear or unambiguous then the intention need not be proved but if the language is vague then it is to be proved that there was intention of talaq. However, after coming into force of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 any law, custom or usage have been made subject to this Ordinance according to section 3 which inter alia declares that the provisions of the Ordinance would have effect, “notwithstanding any law, custom or usage”. According to section 7(3) of the Ordinance a talaq shall not be effective until the expiration of ninety days from the day on which notice under subsection (1) is delivered to the Chairman. In the case of Syed Ali Newaz Gardezi Vs. Lt. Col. Muhammad Yousus reported in 15 DLR (SC) 9 it was observed:
“… it is obvious that the object of section 7
is to prevent hasty dissolution of marriage by
talaq, pronounced by the husband, unilaterally,
without an attempt being made to prevent
disruption of the matrimonial status. If the
husband himself thinks better of the
pronouncement of talaq and abstain from giving
a notice to the chairman, he should perhaps be
deemed in view of section 7, to have revoked
the pronouncement and that would be to the
advantage of the wife. Subsection (3) of this
section precludes the talaq from being
effective as such, for a certain period and
within that period, consequently, it could not
be said that the marital status of the parties
had in any way be changed. They would still in
law continue to be husband and wife.”
21From the above observation there is no doubt that serving notice upon the Chairman with a copy to the wife under section 7(1) read with 7(2) and 7(3) is a mandatory provision in pronouncing any form of talaq except the other form of dissolution of marriage other than talaq as mentioned in section 8 of the Ordinance. In the case of Md. Serajul Islam Vs. Most. Helana Begum and others reported in 1999 BLT (AD) 850 wherein our Supreme Court, Appellate Division held-
“… Section 7(1) of the Ordinance provides for
giving of notice of talaq to the Chairman and
the copy thereof to the wife and provides for
punishment for contravention and this law
overrides any other provision of any other law.
But there being clear intention to divorce by
the affidavit on the part of the petitioner and
the same having been disclosed and produced
before the lower appellate Court by the
petitioner himself, the petitioner cannot take
advantage of his own wrong and cannot claim the
benefit of non-service of notice by him to the
Chairman. He is bound by his admission.”
22In my view, our apex Court made the above observation keeping in mind ‘that would be to the advantage of the wife’ in the given facts and circumstances of that particular case. In the present case the defendantpetitioner husband claimed that marriage was dissolved through Khula talaq but both the courts below concurrently disbelieved it. On examination of that certificate of Khula talaq along with depositions of DWs I also do not find any reason to set aside those findings of courts below on this fact as the petitioner failed to prove the khula talaq.
23In that view of the matter, the marriage between the plaintiff no.1 and the defendant cannot be said to be dissolved through talaq. The plaintiff no.1 and the defendant is still in law continue to be husband and wife unless the marriage is dissolved in accordance with law.
In the facts and circumstances and the position of
24law as discussed above the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are partially incorrect so far it relates to payment of dower but is correct so far it relates to talaq. For the reasons stated above I am constrained to interfere with the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below.
In the result the Rule is made absolute-in-part.
25There will be no order as to cost.
The plaintiff no.1, wife is not entitled to
26deferred dower money as the marriage has not been dissolved in accordance with law, and prompt dower of Tk-250/- has already been paid. Both the plaintiffs are entitled to their maintenance as decreed by the trial court.
Send down the lower court records along with a copy
27of this judgment. Ziaul 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→
