Abdur Rakib (Md) (Shahin) Vs. Shertaj Khatun and another

Abdur Rakib (Md) (Shahin) (Petitioner)


Shertaj Khatun and another (Respondents)


Supreme Court

Appellate Division



MM Ruhul Amin CJ 

Md. Tafazzul Islam J    

Md. Abdul Matin J               

Judgment : June 16, 2008.


Md. Abu Siddique, Advocate-on-Record—for the Petitioner.

Not represented—the Respondents.

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1280 of 2007.

(From the judgment and order dated 8-2-2007 passed by the High Court Division in Civil Revision No.1888 of 2003).


Md. Tafazzul Islam J.- This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8-2-2007 of the High Court Divi­sion passed in Civil Revision No. 1888 of 2003 making absolute the Rule obtained challenging the judgment and decree dated 21-10-1999 of the learned Subordinate Judge (now Joint District Judge), 2nd Court, Chuadanga, passed in First Appeal No.14 of 1996, allowing the same upon setting aside those of dated 18-11-96 of the Family Court, Jibannagar, Chua­danga passed in Family Suit No. 18 of 1995 decreeing the suit.

2. The respondent No.1, as plaintiff, filed the above family suit claiming mainte­nance and also dower money on the aver­ments that the petitioner married her on 1st Baishak 1400 BS and dower money was fixed at Taka 5001 and they lived together as hus­band and wife and out of the wedlock the plaintiff/respondent No. 2 was born and since the marriage, the defendant petitioner kept her at the residence of her father and never gave her as well as the respondent No. 2 any main­tenance and also did not pay her the dower money and that when on 25th Ashar 1401 BS, her father went to the residence of the parents of the petitioner and requested them for taking the respondent No.1 to their house, the peti­tioner claimed Taka 50,000 as dowry and hence the suit. The petitioner contested the suit and filed written statement denying the material allegations and contending that the petitioner did never marry the respondent No.1 and that they did not live together and the respondent No. 2 Shahina Khatun is not his daughter and respondent No.1 is a characterless lady and she had an illicit connection and relation with her neighbour Abu Saleh @ Latin and due to their illegal cohabitation respondent No. 2 was born.

3. The learned Assistant Judge, after hearing, decreed the suit. On appeal the learned District Judge, after hearing allowed the appeal.  On revision the High Court Division made the Rule absolute in part.

4.  We have heard the learned Advocate-on-Record and perused the petition, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court Division and other connected papers.

5.  As it appears the High Court found that the Family Court considering the evidence on record, rightly decreed the suit but the appellate Court, without at all considering the materials on record, illegally allowed the appeal   and accordingly the High Court Division rightly made the Rule absolute modifying the judg­ment and decree of the Family Court with the directions that the petitioner will pay the respondent No. 1 Taka 5001 as dower also pay her lump sum amount of Taka 20,000 in four instalments @ Taka 5000 per quarter as main­tenance and also pay the respondent No. 1 maintenance @ Taka 500 per month till she mar­ries again and the petitioner will also pay the respondent No. 2 maintenance @ Taka 300 per month from the date of her birth and will continue  to  give her  the  amount  till her marriage.

6. We are of the view that the High Court Division on proper consideration of the mate­rials on record arrived at a correct decision and there is no illegality or infirmity in the above decision so as to call for any interference.

The petition is dismissed.


Source : 13 BLC (AD) (2008) 137