Present:

Mr. Justice Md. Kamrul Hossain Mollah

Civil Revision No.469 of 2020

IN THE MATTER OF:

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

- AND -

IN THE MATTER OF:

Md. Abdul Jalil

….Defendant-Appellant -Petitioner -Versus –

Most. Mahmuda Khatun and another

….Plaintiff-Respondent-Opposite Parties

No one appears

…. For the petitioner Mr. Md. Ferdous Sarker, Advocate

……For the Opposite-Parties

Heard on 05.12.2023, 06.12.2023 and Judgment on 07.12.2023

Md. Kamrul Hossain Mollah, J:

On an application by the petitioner, under section 115(1) of the Code

of Civil Procedure, this Rule was issued in the following terms:

Let a Rule be issued calling upon the opposite party to show cause as to why the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 15.09.2019 (decree signed on 19.09.2019) passed by the learned District Judge, Joypurhat in Family Appeal No.14 of 2019 dismissing the Appeal and thereby affirming the Judgment and Decree dated 15.01.2019 (decree signed on 21.01.2019) passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Khetlal, Joypurhat in Family Suit No.22 of 2018 decreeing the suit in part, should not be set-aside and or pass such other order 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 all further proceedings of Family Execution Case No.05 of 2019, now pending before the learned Family Court, Khetlal, Joypurhat for a period of 06(six) months from date.

Facts necessary for disposal of the Rule, in short are that, the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 entered into wedlock on 29.04.2015 AD by dint of a registered kabinnama fixing dower to the amount of Tk.2,00,000/- out of which paid Tk.75,000/- and Tk.1,25,000/- remained unpaid. They performed conjugal life and gave birth to a female child. The defendant No.1 claimed as dowry to the plaintiff and in failure tortured her physically and mentally and drove her along with the minor child in her paternal home for which the plaintiff filed case under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and also filed Family Suit in the Family Court of Khetlal for dower money and maintainance. The defendant No.1 knowing about the case secretly went abroad. The defendant No.2 proposed the plaintiff, if she gave talak to the defendant No.1 and withdraw the case, the defendant No.2 will give the dower money, maintainance of her Iddot period and maintainance of minor child. The plaintiff imagined that there will be long time to obtain the judgment and she agreed with the proposal of defendant No.2. Then on 18.01.2018 the plaintiff divorced defendant No.1 and withdrew the cases. The defendant No.2 told that after withdraw the cases and soon after talak rest amount to dower money of Tk.1,25,000/- will be paid but he without paying the same told that defendant No.1 from abroad will sent Tk.1,00,000/- and from his family Tk.25,000/- will be paid and accordingly in total Tk.1,25,000/- will be paid. But the defendant No.2 without paying the aforesaid money took dilatory tactics. For which the plaintiff only sign in the talaknama but no notice was sent to defendant No.1 and local U.P. Chairman so the talak of the plaintiff only paper transaction. Lastly, the plaintiff with the witnesses on 16.04.2018 went to the house of the defendant No.2 and demanded rest dower, maintenance of her and maintenance of her minor child Tk.6000/- per month but he denied to pay the same and told to ask the money to the defendant No.1. The plaintiff over mobile demanded the rest dower money, maintenance of her and her children to the defendant No.1, but he denied to pay the same. Hence the Case.

The defendant No.2 entered appearance in the suit and contested the suit by filing a written statement contending inter alia that marriage with the plaintiff and defendant No.1 was solemnized on 29.04.2015 by registered kabinnama. After marriage the defendant No.1 went abroad. In the meantime, a female child was born. While defendant No.1 in t