IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

Present:

Mr. Justice Md. Mozibur Rahman Miah

and

Mr. Justice Mohi Uddin Shamim

Civil Revision No. 3548 of 2019

In the matter of:

An application under Section 115(1) of the Code of

Civil Procedure.

AND

In the matter of:

Prodip Roy alias Sumon

.... Defendant-appellant-petitioner -Versus-

Tumpa Kar and others

.... Plaintiffs-respondents-opposite-parties

Mr. S. M. Moniruzzaman, Advocate with

Mr. Md. Asad Miah, Advocate with

Mr. Debashish Deb, Advocate

...... For the defendant-appellant-petitioner

Mr. Muhammad Mijanur Rahman (Masum), Advocate with Ms. Jobaida Gulshan Ara, Advocate

... For the plaintiff-respondent-opposite-party No.1

Heard on: 10.01.2024 and

Judgment on: 15.01.2024

Mohi Uddin Shamim, J.

At the instance of the defendant-appellant-petitioner, this Rule

was issued calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the

impugned judgment and decree dated 25.04.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Chattogram in Family Appeal No.80 of 2018 dismissing the said appeal on contest by affirming the judgment and decree dated 31.05.2018 passed by the 2nd Additional Senior Assistant Judge and Family Court, Chattogram in Family Suit No.86 of 2016 decreeing the suit in part on contest without any order as to cost should not be set aside and/or pass such other or further order or orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

At the time of issuance of the Rule, this Court stayed operation of the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.04.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Chattogram in Family Appeal No. 80 of 2018 dismissing the appeal on condition that the petitioner shall continue the payment of Tk. 6,000/- (Taka Six Thousand) only as directed by the Trial Court below with effect from December, 2019.

Facts necessary for disposal of the Rule, in short, are that the present opposite parties as plaintiff No.1-3 filed a family suit being Family Suit No. 86 of 2016 against the present petitioner impleading him as sole defendant praying for maintenance, contending, inter-alia, that the marriage between the plaintiff No.1 and the defendant was solemnized on 02.12.2010 on accomplishing all Hindu rituals. During their wed-lock, two daughters namely Poushaly Roy, the plaintiff No.2 and Joyita Roy, the plaintiff No.3 were born. The defendant was unhappy and dissatisfied upon the plaintiff No.1 for giving birth of two female children. Thereafter, he started to torture the plaintiff No. 1 on different issues, specifically on dowry.

Thereafter, on 20.07.2014 the defendant tortured the plaintiff No.1 physically on demanding dowry and drove out her from his house along with the minor daughters at about 8.00 AM on the day. Having no other alternative, the plaintiff No. 1 took shelter at her father's house with her minor daughters. Since then, the defendant did not communicate with them and did not provide any maintenance for them. On 26.08.2015, the plaintiff No.1 dissolved the marital bond with the defendant by swearing an affidavit and since then i.e. 20.07.2014, the defendant is not providing maintenance to his wife as well as his 2 (two) minor daughters. Lastly on 23.01.2016, the plaintiff No.1 demanded maintenance for herself along with their minor daughters from the defendant but he denied paying any. Thus the plaintiff No.1 was compelled to file the instant Family Suit.

On the other hand, the defendant contested the suit by filing written statement denying all the material averments made in the plaint, contending inter alia that, the marriage of the plaintiff No.1 and the defendant was solemnized on 02.12.2010 accomplishing all Hindu rituals. After a few days of marriage, the true face of the plaintiff No.1 star