HASINA BANO Vs. ALAM NOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The fight over the payment of "mehar" (dower) has brought the parties before this Court. The appellant-wife has demanded the payment of "mehar" from the non-petitioner-husband; the latter has denied his liability to pay the same on the ground that she has relinquished her right to the "mehar" through an agreement. The trial Court and the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bhilwara have upheld the non- petitioner's contention. The petitioner is, thus, challenging the Order dated 6-6-1997 whereby the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, No. 2, Bhilwara has rejected the claim for "mehar" by the petitioner against the non-petitioner. She is also challenging the Order dated 22- 6-1998, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Bhilwara has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the Order dated 6-6-1997.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that, in 1982, the petitioner and non-petitioner were married according to the Muslim rites and customs. At the time of her marriage, the petitioner was given not only jewellery, but also utensils and other household goods. Most importantly, at the time of marriage, it was agreed that the non-petitioner-husband shall pay Rs. 5.000/- and three gold "asharfies" (gold coins) to the petitioner as the "mehar". Out of the wedlock, son, Umar Farooq, was born to the couple. However, subsequently, differences arose between the parties. Therefore, the petitioner was thrown out of her matrimonial home. In 1992, the non-petitioner divorced the petitioner. But despite the said divorce, the non-petitioner neither paid the "mehar", nor returned the dowry amount and items to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner filed an application under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Act' for short).

(3.) The non-petitioner filed the reply to the said application. He claimed that due to the utter poverty of the petitioner's family, but for the jewellery, no other dowry item was given by her family at the time of marriage. According to him the petitioner took the said jewellery when she left the matrimonial home. Moreover, according to him, on 4-8-1992, the petitioner's brother, Saleem, her mother and the petitioner came to his house and entered into an agreement. According to the said agreement, since the petitioner was given the right to keep the son, Umar Farooq, with her, she was relinquishing her right to the "mehar". Thus, according to the non-petitioner, the petitioner has relinquished her right to the "mehar", she is bound by the said agreement. Hence, now she cannot claim the right to the "mehar".