MT KHAIRAN NISSA Vs. MAHAMAD HUSSAIN BARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by a wife against her husband claiming deferred dower money of Rs. 1,000. The defendant husband is a clerk at Shillong on a salary of Rs. 110 per month. He had married the plaintiff, and apparently they lived together for a period of 14 to 15 years, at the end of which there was disagreement between the parties and she thereafter left his house and went to live with her parents at Sibsagar. Her case was that she was driven out of the house at Shillong. The defendant's case was that she became extremely insubordinate and of her own accord she left his protection after he had duly pronounced a divorce on 2nd May 1927. After the separation she instituted a maintenance case under Section 488, Criminal P. C., and apparently obtained an ex parte order, but when she proceeded to execute the order the defendant in 1930 produced the Talaknama and thereupon the Court dismissed the plaintiff's maintenance suit. The plaintiff's case was that she came to know of the Talaknama in January 1930. Thereafter, on 15 July 1930, the present suit was instituted. The plaintiff being a poor destitute woman was allowed to sue as a pauper.

(2.) The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation. The Court found that the Talaknama was pronounced on 2 May, 1927. As a period of three years had elapsed from the date of the divorce the claim for dower money was extinguished by limitation. In appeal by the plaintiff the Court of appeal below affirmed the finding of the trial Court and held that the claim for dower money was barred by limitation. For the first time in the Court of appeal the plaintiff urged that if the claim for Rs. 1,000 be barred by limitation the plaintiff may be granted a decree on the basis of the deed of divorce produced by the defendant, for in that Talaknama executed by the defendant on 2 May, 1927 he stated that he would pay the dower money of Rs. 1,000 by monthly instalment, of Rs. 20. The Court of appeal below held that the claim for a monthly instalment was not made in the plaint nor in the first Court, and as she never accepted the offer made by the defendant in the Talaknama she was not entitled to a decree.

(3.) The first point in appeal is whether the plaintiff's claim is governed by Art. 116, Lim. Act, on the ground that the deed of dower was registered according to the Mahomedan Marriage Registration Act of 1876. The argument appears to be without substance, for there is apparently no Kabinnama registered even under the Mahomedan Marriage Registration Act. All that there is is the certified copy of the marriage from the register of the Mahomedan Marriage Registrar. In that copy there is a column stating that the prompt dower was Rs. 500 and the deferred was Rs. 1,000. Apart from this there is no other document registered or unregistered. It cannot be said merely because the amount of the deferred dower was stated in the marriage which was registered under the Marriage Registration Act that the matter of the dower was in a registered document.