NOOR MOHAMMAD Vs. MOHAMMAD JIAJDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A forsaken bride's pride and honour is put at stake by her father. A challenging problem of gender justice of a rare kind begs solution in this appeal. Court below has decreed his suit, which was a hybrid action founded on law of tort and contract. Appellant is bridegroom's father, impleaded as defendant No. 1 in the suit. He is held liable under the impugned judgment and decree to pay Rs. 7,700/- to bride's father, plaintiff/ respondent No. 1.

(2.) Ruksana's marriage (nikah) was solemnized on the morning of 16-4-1976 with Sher Mohammad, defendant No. 2, son of defendant No. 1 appellant. At the time of nikah consent of the bride was given by plaintiff as she was minor. Plaintiff 's father's case is that on the preceding evening the Barat (bridegroom's party) came from village Balapura to his house at Datarda village (both in Sheopur Kalan Pargana) and that it consisted of about 250 persons. He had arranged meals for them and for the invited guests who were about 2,000. He had spent Rs. 6,000 / - in that connection. He had paid cash Rs. 2,000/- to defendants for expenses claimed by them for Gas-lights, Band etc. accompanying the Barat. They claimed also payment for the nautch-girl, which the plaintiff refused. Defendants and the Barat returned in the afternoon leaving back the bride on being angry with the plaintiff for his refusal to pay for the services of the nautch-girl accompanying the Barat. Plaintiff was a man of status and as a result of the barat returning without taking with them the bride he suffered loss of reputation as the occasion was witnessed by the invited guests who were responsible persons. The bride was dishonoured and was neglected for two years as defendants took no steps during that period to take her away to the matrimonial home. The cause of action for the suit according to him was occasioned when desired to divorce the bride was expressed on 15-2-1978. The suit was filed on 20-3-1978 claiming Rs. 6,000/- as expenses for meals, Rs. 2,000/- paid cash and Rs. 3,000/ - for loss of reputation.

(3.) Defendants filed a joint written statement claiming that the Barat consisted of 50 persons only and another 200 to 300 persons attended the marriage as guets and invitees of the plaintiff; that only two meals were served to the Barat; that no payment was made to them for Gas-light and Band by the plaintiff to whom they made no demand even for the services of the nautch girl. They admitted the marriage but claimed that the plaintiff quarrelled with them and drove away the Barat refusing to send the bride with them. They admitted that plaintiff gave consent for marriage on bride's behalf but claimed that she was major and was competent to give consent herself. They set up the case that at the time of showing the dowry the bridegroom was abused and was told by plaintiff's mother that he could take away dowry and also the bride if he agreed to live under the toe of her shoes. When defendants wanted dates for bidai (for taking the bride to matrimonial home) the plaitniff avoided them. Defendant No. 2 (bridegroom) had gone to plaintiff's place accompanied by Maiuddin, Kaji Wajiurulla, Munshi Hassan Mohammad and Salamatulla to bring home the bride but plaintiff refused to send his daughter. Defendants had not insulted the bride and the claim was false.