IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

Present:

Mr. Justice K.M. Hafizul Alam

Civil Revision No. 4436 OF 2016 Mahafuzur Rahman

….. Defendant–Appellant-Petitioner

-VERSUS- Mayeshya Farzana Shupti

…. Plaintiff-Respondent-Opposite party

Mr. S.M. Kamal Hossain, Advocate

..... For the Petitioner Mr. Md. Uzzal Hossain, Advocate

…. For the Opposite party

Heard on 01.09.2024 and 02.09.2024 Judgment on 03.09.2024

K.M. Hafizul Alam, J.

On an application under Section 115(1) of the Code

of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), this Rule was issued on 04.12.2016, calling upon the opposite party to show cause as to why the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.06.2016, passed by the learned Joint District Judge, 1st Court, Jashore in Family Appeal No. 24 of 2015, disallowing the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 21.05.2015, passed by the learned Senior Assistant Judge, Sador Court and Paribarik Adalat,

Jashore in Family Suit No. 177 of 2013, decreeing the suit, 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 the issuance of the Rule, by an ad- interim order, the operation of the above-mentioned judgment and decree dated 30.06.2016 was stayed for a period of 4 (four) months on condition that the petitioner shall pay Tk. 1,00,000 (one) lakh in the Family Court within 4 (four) months, failing which the Rule would stand discharged. The petitioner was directed to submit compliance within 4 (four) months. The opposite party may withdraw the amount as ordered to be deposited.

Facts, relevant for the disposal of the Rule, in short, are that the opposite party, as the plaintiff, instituted Family Suit No. 177 of 2013 on 24.07.2013, impleading the petitioner as the defendant before the Court of Paribarik Judge and Assistant Judge, Sadar, Jashore. The plaintiff contended, inter alia, that she married the defendant on 14.12.2012 according to Islamic Sharia, with Tk. 3,00,000/- fixed as dower money. After the marriage, they started their conjugal life. Subsequently, the defendant demanded Tk.10,00,000/-(Ten lakh) as dowry and tortured her physically and mentally, eventually sent the plaintiff to her father’s house on 21.04.2013. Thereafter, upon request, the defendant went to the plaintiff's father’s house on 18.07.2013. Despite repeated requests, the defendant refused to take her back unless the dowry money was paid. At that time, on 18.07.2013, the plaintiff demanded Tk. 3,00,000 (Three lakh) as her dower, which had been fixed at the time of marriage, and Tk. 3,000 (Three thousand) per month as maintenance. However, the defendant refused to pay. Hence, the plaintiff filed this case.

The defendant contested the case by filing a written statement denying all material allegations made in the plaint. The defendant’s case, in short, is that he married the plaintiff on 14.12.2012 and had already paid her full dower on 07.01.2013. A few days later, he learned that the plaintiff had been married to more than one person previously. When questioned, she denied her previous marriages. The plaintiff could not gi