In The Court of Senior Assistant Judge & Family Court, Chittagong
Present:-Mr.Nurul Abrar, Senior Assistant Judge
Thursday, The 6th day of May 2011
Family Suit no.-10/2011
Irfan Sultana………………Plaintiff
Versus
Tasmiluzzman and Arshad Ali…………Defendants
This suit coming on for final hearing on 04.05.2011 in the presence of
Mr.Asad Newaz and Mr.Moazzm Hossain………….Advocate for Plaintiff
Mrs.Sharmin Zahan and Mr.yakub ………...Advocate for Defendant(s)
And having stood for consideration to this day, the court deliver the following judgment. This is suit for recovery of dower, maintenance and other demands.
The case of the plaintiff in short is that the plaintiff comes of middle class Muslim family and she is a simple, polite and amiable lady. On 10.07.2009 marriage between plaintiff and defendant No.1 was solemnised by registered ‘Nikha Nama’ and 07.09.2009 marriage ceremony was held.
On ‘Nikha Nama’ dower money was fixed at Taka 10,00,000/- Out of which Taka 4,00,000/-Was shown paid. This rest amount was divined at Taka 4,50,000/-and Taka 1,50,000/- as promote dower and deferred dower respectively. About maintenance it was settle that the amount of monthly maintenance would be fixed, in future, on the basis of the plaintiff and of market price. On the day of the marriage ceremony a lot of valuables e.g. colour television, Refrigerator, full set house hold furniture, gold ornaments etc. were presented to the dependant No.1 on the part of the plaintiff .After marriage plaintiff concentrated to start a happy conjugal life. But with a few days plaintiff discovers that defendant No.1 was drug addicted. The defendant No.1 used to return home in drunken condition and frequently torture the plaintiff physically and mentally.
Page-2
The plaintiff did not disclose anything to anybody for a long time hoping that defendant No.1 would be back on the right track in future. Findings no other way the plaintiff compelled to inform her relatives and defendant No1’s relatives of the matter. But everything went in vain and the degree of torture on the plaintiff increased.
On 25.07.2010 the defendant No.1 took away all ornaments from the plaintiff for borrowing money by mortgaging the ornaments in order to porches a car. Moreover, the defendant No.1 created pressure on the plaintiff and torture her to bring more money form her brother. On 18.09.2010 defendant No.1 and 2 forcibly sent the plaintiff to her father’s residence with her brother Nazam uddin who come to defendant’s residence to see the plaintiff. Both the defendants admitted the fact before plaintiff’s local elites.
On 20.11.2010 the defendant No.1 coming to plaintiff’s brother’s residence in a drunken condition misused and misbehaved with plaintiff. A G.D was lodged with Hallishahar police station in this connection. Again on 25.11.10 defendant No.1 coming to plaintiff house and misbehave with her and gave open threat of divorce and killing her if she failed to bring money from her brother. About this incident another G.D was lodged with Halishahar police station. The plaintiff demanded her dower money and maintenance cost through local elites as well as by sending legal notice. The cause of action arose on 18.09.2010, 28.02.2011, 05.03.2011 and subsequent dates.
Defendants contested the suit by filling written statement. Defendants denied all materials facts and allegation of the plaintiff as made out in the plaint contending interlaid, that the suit of plaintiff is not maintenance and liable to be dismissed. Defendant claiming themselves modest and simple mentioned that the plaintiff’s allegations are fabricated, concocted and baseless.
Defendant case in brief, is the marriage between plaintiff and defendant No.1 was solemnised on 10.07.2009 and marriage ceremony held on 07.09.2009.The plaintiff came under the conjugal domain of defendant No.1 on the day of marriage ceremony. After few days of the marriage the plaintiff suddenly stared misbehave with the defendant No.1.
Page-3
Defendant brought the matter to the knowledge of the plaintiff’s brother and other relatives. They also failed to make the plaintiff understand. Upon enquiry of the reason behind arrogance, disobedience and crude behaving, the defendant No.1 come to know that the plaintiff had a pre-nuptial love-affair with other person and she could not forget it. Defendant’s further case is that on 18.09.2010 plaintiff went to her father’s residence with her brother for pleasure trip. The plaintiff refused to come back from pleasure trip despite the fact that defendant no.2 and ward commissioner Mrs.Sormista dash went to plaintiff’s father’s residence to bring her back. Moreover, the defendant No.1 was beaten up by the plaintiff’s brother and her maternal uncle when he went to bring the plaintiff back for the last time. Being frightened of social sandal the defendant No.1 did not lodge any suit against the offenders. The plaintiff filed this groundless suit against the defendant while they were waiting for believing that the plaintiff would understand faults and come back. The plaintiff is not intentionally coming under the conjugal domain of defendant No.1 and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.
The following issues have been framed for trial and decision:-
1) Is the suit maintainable?
2) Is there any cause of action for filing the suit?
3) Is the plaintiff entitled to a decree as prayed for?
4) What other relief or relief’s, if any, the plaintiff is entitled for?
Findings and Decision
Issues No.1 and 2 :
No party has raised any specific objection against the maintainability of the suit. Therefore, the court decision is that the suit is maintainable in its present form. There is cause of action for filling the suit. The cause of action arose on 18.09.2010, 28.02.2011, 05.03.2011 and subsequent dates.
Page-4
Issues No.3 and 4:
All these issues are taken up jointly for the convenience of decision.
On the part of the plaintiff Nikah Nama(Exhibit-1),Medical certificate (Exhibit-2), Decision of Meeting(Exhibit-3), copy of the G.D. lodged with Halishahar police station(Exhibit-4), copy of another G.D.(Exhibit-5), postal receipt (Exhibit-6)have been submitted. The defendants submit only Receipt of Jewellery (Exhibit-1) as documentary evidence.
In deposition, the plaintiff, P.W-1 described his case and proved the documents submitted on behalf of her. In cross-examination the plaintiff told that on 18.09.2010 she did not go for pleasure trip, rather she was forcibly sent her father’s residence. In deposition the plaintiff stated that she demanded her dower and maintenance through the local elites. But the defendant No.1 did not pay dower and maintenance. In deposition P.W-2 asserted that the plaintiff did not have any love affair with other person. The plaintiff denied all the allegation of the defendants. At the time of examination-in-chief and cross-examination, Ward Commissioner Mr. Shafi told that, on 10.11.10 he arranged a meeting. In that meeting defendant no 1 and 2 admitted their fault. In cross-examination P.W-2 told that his sister came to their house on 14.09.10 and 12.10.10. But P.W-1 told she was came their house at 15.09.10 and 12.10.10.There were contradiction between ward commissioner’s oral statement and P.W-2 and P.W-1 that P.W-3 told that the meeting held on his office but P.W-1 and P.W-2 told that the meeting held on their house. On the part of plaintiff P.W-2 has been submitted Medical Certificate as Exhibit No-2, but he did not know the doctor name.
In deposition D.W-1 described his case.D.W-1 denied all the allegation of plaintiff. In examination-in-chief the D.W-1 told that upon enquiry he come to know that plaintiff had a love-affair with other person and she could not forget her love affair and that is why she misbehaves with him. But in cross-examination he could not say anything how and from whom she learnt about the love affair. In cross-examination D.W-1 admitted that after 18.09.2010 he did not give any money to the plaintiff for maintenance. At the time of cross-examination D.W-1 told that he went to Plaintiff residence on 26.09.10
Page-5
and 29.09.10, but he did not mention any thing in written statement about that date. In cross-examination D.W-1 was asked if he paid the dower money, he replied that “how I will pay?”
D.W-2 in his deposition told that he went to plaintiff’s father’s residence to bring the plaintiff back, but in cross examination he could not say on what date he went. In cross-examination he also told a date that had not mention in the written statement. In cross-examination D.W-2 asserted that he did not took any measure for meeting.
There were contradiction between D.W-1 and D.W-3, D.W-1 said that plaintiff had a love affair with her cousin Jewel, but D.W-3 said in his oral statement plaintiff had a love affair with her cousin Apu.
Examination the plaint, written statement, documentary evidences and deposition of the witnesses it appears that marriage between plaintiff and defendant held by registered nikah nama. Plaintiff alleged that the defendant No-1 was drug addicted. P.W -3 in his deposition he clearly told that on 25.11.2010 the defendant No-1 went P.W-1 residence in a drunken condition and he misused and gave threat of divorce and killing the plaintiff. D.W-2 also admitted in his deposition that D.W-1 went to P.W-1 residence. From the deposition of the P.W -1, P.W-2 and D.W-2 it is evident that the plaintiff has been able to prove the allegation against defendant No-1 regarding drug addiction.
The defendant No-1 allegation that the plaintiff had a pre-nuptial love affair with other person and the plaintiff misbehave with him and other family members as she could not forget the love affair. But the defendant No-1 never saw the plaintiff with other person nor could he produce anything in support of his allegation.
Now let us see whether the plaintiff is entitled to maintenance living apart from her husband. P.W -1 alleged that she was forcibly sent to her father’s residence to bring money. P.W -3 in his deposition told that on 25.11.2010 the defendant No-1 coming to P.W-1 residence and gave open threat of divorce and killing the plaintiff if she failed to bring money from her
Page-6
brother. She was compelled to stay there. Beside, admittedly the defendant No.1 did not pay the dower money to the plaintiff. In this connection the judgement described in PLD 1960(WP) Karachi
In the present suit the defendant No-1 admittedly is not giving maintenance to the plaintiff from 18.09.2010. Under this circumstance the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree of TK 25,000/- as maintenance cost from 18.09.2010 to 10.03.2011 month at the rate of Taka 5,000/- per month and Taka 4,50,000/- as prompt dower.
The plaintiff demanded that at the marriage ceremony a lot of valuables colour television, refrigerator, house hold furniture, gold ornaments etc. Worth Taka 2,00,000/- Were given to the defendant No.1 as presentation. Since these demands are beyond the purview of the jurisdiction of this court, the plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief from this court. The plaintiff may raise the matter in proper forum.
The plaintiff is entitled to get a decree of a total amount of Taka 4,75,000/-out of which Taka 4,50,000/- for prompt dower and Taka 25,000/-for maintenance.
Plaintiff’s demand’s regarding prompt dower and maintenance have been proved.
Court Fee paid is correct.
Ordered
That the suit be decreed on contest against the Defendants.
Signature of the judge
No comments:
Post a Comment