FAMILY COURT ORDINANCE, 1985, SECTION 5. PART 2

Section-5

A Subordinate Judge has got no jurisdiction to invoke any power under Section 15 I of the Code in the proceedings of a title suit either to grant stay or injunction in respect of a family suit of a family Court.

Md. Shafiqul Haque Vs. Mina Begum 10BLT (HCD)-185

Section-5 read with  Specific Relief Act, 1877 

Section-39

On 12.10.2000 opposite party No.1 instituted the family suit before the Family Court for dower and maintenance.
The petitioner has already appeared and filed a written statement denying his marriage with her. He has got every opportunity to challenge the ‘Kabinnama’ and the solemnization of the marriage on the very same grounds on which he on 22.10.2000 filed Title suit No.296 of 2000 before a Subordinate Judge. Family Court has got every jurisdiction to decide as to whether the “Kabinnama” in question is a genuine and valid document or not and whether any marriage between the petitioner and Opposite Party No. 1 was ever solemnized or not before it decides to grant any decree for dower and /or maintenance. In such a suit for a decree for dower and/or maintenance, no declaration in
respect of the “Kabinnama” or cancellation of the “Kabinnama” is at all necessary. Family Court therefore cannot be
expected to wait for the final decision of a title suit on like issues as nobody can surely say when such title suit would find the end of the tunnel. Moreover, it would be acting to frustrate the very purpose of the Ordinance.

Md. Shafiqul Haque Vs. Mina Begum 10 BLT (HCD)-185.

Section-5

The appellate court below hold that the plaint iff got five bighas of land as dower and thereafter, the money which was given to the defendant \:o. 1 by selling Jive bighas of land was money loan by the wife to the husband which cannot be treated as dower the family court cannot adjudicate upon the dispute.

Held: The court of appeal below erred law in holding that the money given by the plaintiff by selling 5 bighas of land to the defendant No. 1 was not dower and that the said money was loan. The court of appeal below in the premises, has committed error of law in holding that the said dispute cannot be adjudicated upon by the family court. I am of the view that the family Court has rightly directed the defendant No. 1 to give 5 bighas of land as dower.

Most. Rowshan Ara Begum Chowdhury Vs. Tahera Noor Jahan & Ors. 10 BLT(HCD)-307

Section-17(l)(5)

Whether a decree will be drawn up by the Family Court Lifter the pronouncement of the judgement.

The formal expression of a decision of a Civil Court is an order, the word “Order’ occurring in sub-sections I and 5 of section 17 may be said to include any “decision” rendered by a court on a question between the parties of a proceeding before the court. The “Decision”‘ may be both interlocutory and final. The decision rendered by the Family Court is final decision/judgement setting the controversy and determining the rights of the parties in the suit on consideration of the facts, issues and legal aspect and the same is not an interlocutory order-a decree will be drawn up by the Family Court after the pronouncement of the judgement.

Ms. Farhat Rahman Vs. Roomee Tarek Moudud 8 BLT (HCD)-108.

 

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.