KHATUN BIBI Vs. RAJJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises a question of the validity of an agreement in relation to a Mahomedan marriage, which seem to me to be concluded by authorities which I feel compelled to follow, even if I did not agree with them.

(2.) A Mahomedan husband sues his wife for restitution of conjugal rights. The wife alleges that in breach of an agreement, made on the 1 of March 1921, (an ante nuptial agreement) she is entitled to, and has, in fact, divorced her husband. The lower appellate Court held that there is no proof that the defendant exercised the option of divorce and it also rightly held that the agreement gave no power to the wife to divorce. In my opinion the question of divorce is a side issue, which really does not arise. The real question is whether the agreement is binding upon the husband so as to disentitle him to bring a suit for restitution of conjugal rights.

(3.) The agreement is not correctly set out in the written statement. In fact, it appears to me to have been deliberately mis stated in the written statement. The material portion of the agreement made by the husband before the date of marriage, as translated into English, runs as follows: I shall live at the house of wife's mother and shall always live with my wife. If I do not live at her house or live at any other place, I shall have no concern with Mt. Khatun Bibi (the wife), daughter of Mt. Marki (mother in-law), and she will have a right to marry Mt. Khatun Bibi to whomsoever she likes. I shall have no concern with Mt. Khatun Bibi again. I shall not live at any other place without the permission of Mt, Maiki or Khatun Bibi.