NAJIMAN NISSA BEGUM Vs. SERAJUDDIN AHMED KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case after I had proceeded to deliver judgment it was represented to me that there was a chance of an amicable settlement between the parties, the Advocate-General stating that his information was that the wife was willing to come and stay with the husband, but her parents were not allowing her to do so. He, therefore, suggested that if the real wishes of the wife were ascertained and if she was unwilling to live with him, the husband will have no objection to the dissolution of the marriage. Accordingly I directed Mr. Subba Rao to himself proceed to the house of the wife in Cuttack and ascertain her real wishes. He informed me that the wife is not willing to stay with the husband owing to his behaviour in the past. Accordingly I proceed to deliver judgment.

(2.) In this appeal the principal question for decision is whether the facts proved entitled the wife to claim dissolution of her marriage with the respondent. The plaintiff is admittedly the married wife of the respondent. Marriage took place in 1925. The parties apparently lived as husband and wife till 1931 or 1932 when the wife was attacked with malaria in Balasore-that is the place where the family of the husband resides. But the husband in the course of his duties had to remain away from Balasore. Thereafter she came to Cuttack or rather was brought to Cuttack by her brother as it was alleged that she was not being properly looked after by the family of the husband during her illness. Soon after the defendant married another wife without the previous consent of the plaintiff. This was followed by a notice (Ex. 2) which was sent to the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff demanding from him her prompt dower and also maintenance at the rate of Rs. 40 a month. No reply was sent to this notice. The plaintiff then instituted a suit for recovery of the dower debt and also for return of certain moveables as it was alleged that she was not allowed to bring them from Balasore.

(3.) In that suit the defence was that the plaintiff had voluntarily relinquished a portion of her dower debt and also had converted the balance to deferred dower. The matter came up to the High Court where it was decided that whether the wife's allegation that she was coerced to enter into the agreement to relinquish the dower debt was true or not, as the relinquishment took place when she was a minor, the defendant is bound to pay the full dower debt. The decree of the High Court was passed on 21 December 1937. That decree is being realised through the execution Court where the defendant has been able to get an order for instalments. I was informed that warrant of arrest was applied for by the wife to recover part of her decretal dues.