UTPAL KANTI DAS Vs. MONJU RANI DAS
SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
Utpal Kanti Das
Monju Rani Das
Click here to view full judgement.
BIMALENDU BIKASH ROY CHOUDHURY,J. -
(1.) In this appeal by leave the defendant Utpal Kanti Das calls in question the propriety of the judgment and order dated 6 February 1994 passed by the High Court Division in Civil Order No.653 of 1994 summarily rejecting his revisional application against the judgment and decree dated 10 November 1993 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Manikganj in Family Appeal No.1 of 1992 reversing those dated 18 January 1992 passed by the Family Court, Saturia dismissing Family Court Case No.8 of 1991 brought by the plaintiff and respondent Monju Rani Das for her maintenance.
(2.) The parties to the suit both belong to the Shudra caste of Hindu community. The plaintiff claimed maintenance @ Taka 1000/-per month with effect from 1st Aswin, 1396 BS from the defendant alleging that the defendant who was in love with her had married her on 6th October 1988 19th Aswin 1395 BSaccording to the Hindu Shastra at Tarasree Kalimandir in presence of several persons. Subsequently on 8th October 1988 the plaintiff and the defendant together swore an affidavit before a Magistrate First Class, Faridpur confirming the marriage. After the plaintiff and the defendant had lived as man and wife at the place of service of the defendant, they came to the house of the plaintiffs father. The defendant demanded TK.30,000.00 as dowry from the plaintiffs father. As the plaintiffs father was unable to pay the dowry the defendant left her behind at her fathers place never to take any further news of her or pay any maintenance for her. The defendant subsequently married one Rani Das of the district of Mymensingh.
(3.) The defendant resisted the claim pleading that there was no marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant although the plaintiff made overtures to marry him at the house of the plaintiffs maternal uncle where he lodged as a student. The defendant also disclaimed the affidavit which he said was fake. The defendant did not take any plea that the marriage was invalid for want of any Shastric ceremony.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.