Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.-The point that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the plaintiff, who is a minor under the Indian Majority Act but who is a major according to her personal law, is entitled to bring a suit for dissolution of her marriage without a next friend. The learned District Munsiff of Ottapalam, who heard the petition of the defendant filed under Order 32, rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code praying that the suit O.S. No. 496 of 1950 on the file of the said Court should be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff therein being a minor was not entitled to bring the suit without the next friend, dismissed the same following the decisions in Ahmad Sulaiman Vohra v. Mt. Bai Fatima1 Nakasetan Bibi v. Habibar Rahiman Mandal2, and holding that the plaintiff was competent to sue for dissolution of her marriage without a next friend and that the suit as framed was maintainable. The defendant has preferred this civil revision petition against the decision of the learned District Munsiff of Ottapalam.

Mr. C.S. Swaminatha Ayyar appearing for the petitioner has invited my attention to the decision in Ithayi Umah v. Kairhirapokil3, a Bench decision wherein it has been held that:

"Section 2 of Act IX of 1875 (Indian Majority Act) refers only to the capacity to contract which limited by section 11 of the Contract Act, and not to the capacity to sue, which is purely a question of procedure and regulated by the Civil Procedure Code, Chapter XXXI .

This decision has been followed in Abi Dhunimsa Bibi v. Mohammad Fathi Uddin4. This again is a Bench decision and in that decision it has been held that:

"A relinquishment of her right to dower by a Muhammadan woman, who is a minor, under the Indian Majority Act, is invalid under the Indian Contract Act (IX of 1872). To relinquish dower is not ‘to act in the matter of dower’ within section 2 of the Indian Majority Act.

Apart from these two decisions, no other decision of this Court on the point in question has been brought to my notice. In Usman Ali Khan v. Mst. Khatoon Bam5, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner it has been held that:

"Section 2(a) of the Indian Majority Act does not prevent a Muhammadan girl of 15 years of age from bringing a suit for dower through a next friend and the decree obtained in such a suit is not a nullity".

Though in this case objection was taken that the suit brought on behalf of the minor through the next friend was incompetent, still the decision has turned upon the interpretation of the words occurring in section 2(a) of the Indian Majority Act, viz., "to act in the matter of dower." It has been held in that decision after a review of all the cases including Ithayi Umah v. Kairhirapokil3, Abi Dhunimsa Bibi v. Mohamad Fathi Uddin4, and cases of other High Courts as well, that the words to act in the matter of dower" in section 2(a) are to be given only a restricted meaning and do not include the bringing of a suit for dower and that that section merely relieves the plaintiff of some of the consequences of her minority, but she remains a minor nonetheless. That being so, it was held, the provisions of Order 32, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, still apply and so in respect of the institution of suits she will have to act through her next friend. In Najmunnissa Begum V. Maulavi Sirajuddin Ahmad Khan1which has also been referred to in the Lucknow Full Bench decision, the decision in Abi Dhunimsa Bibi v. Mohammad Fathiuddin2 was followed and it was held that:

"Once a marriage has been performed and the dower is settled, a wife who (although a major according to the personal law of the lady) is still a minor under the Majority Act, 1875, is not competent to relinquish the whole or part of her dower to change its character."

The Bench which decided this case distinguished it from the decisions in Qasim Hussain Beg v. Kaniz Sakina3and Mozharul Islam v. Abdul Gani Ala4. In Maung Tun Aung v. Ma Ekyi5, the term "cap

Click Here to Read the rest of this document