Muslim Marriages and Divorces (Registration) Act, 1974

Muslim Marriages and Divorces (Registration) Act, 1974

Section-4

The amendment of Section 4 in the parent Act, 1974 came on 1.12.82 by which second proviso was added and as such the Govt. retain the power to curtail/extend the area and the question of retrospectivity does not arise as the curtailment of the area took place after 1982. In the meanwhile, Rule 10 of Rules, 1975 was amended on 30.12.97. The impugned orders were passed on 10.6.98 and 17.6.98 whereby the area in which a Nikab Registrar has been licensed was further curtailed. The orders having been passed after amendment of Rules 10 of Rules, 1975, those are not retrospective in nature. As a matter of fact those are prospective in nature—The petitioner’s licence as a Nikah Registrar has not at all been revoked/affected but under the second proviso of Section 4 of the Act his area has been curtailed which the Government is authorised under the law to do. [Paras-11 & 13]

Md Raisuddin Vs. Bangladesh & Ors. 7 BLT (AD)-332

Section-4

Second Proviso of the Section 4 has empowered the Government to extend, curtail or otherwise alter the limits of any area for which a Nikah registrar has been licensed, whenever the Government deems it fit to do so. [Para-7]

Moulana Md. Khurshid Alam Vs. Ministry of Law, Bangladesh 6 BLT (AD)-196

Whether written Kabinnama or its registration is essential in order to establish the validity of Muslim marriage

If the marriage is otherwise valid, absence of written kabinnama or its registration does not invalidate the marriage. [Paras-15, 16 & 17]

Md. Chan Mia Vs. Rupnahar 6 BLT (HCD)-92.

Muslim Marriages and Divorces (Registration) Act, 1974

 

Muslim
Marriages and Divorces (Registration) Act [LII of 1974]


Section 4–

The
Government has the authority to exclude certain area from the jurisdiction of
one Nikah Registrar and amalgamate with others but in so doing notice to show
cause should be served upon the existing Nikah Registrar and must show the
reasons therefor. When not done so, the order of delimitation is without lawful
authority and is of no legal effect.

Latifur
Rahman (Md) vs Ministry of Law and Parliamentary Affairs, Government of the
People’s Republic of Bangladesh and another 49 DLR 434.

 

Section 4–

When the
proviso to section 4 gave unlimited power to the Government to extend, curtail
or alter the limits of any area, the sub–rule I of rule 10 cannot be said to be
mandatory. This is merely –directory.

Nur Mohammad
Fakir vs Bangladesh and others 50 DLR 71.

 

Section 4–

The second
proviso to section 4 of the Muslim Marriages and Divorces (Registra­tion) Act
has empowered the Government to extend, curtail or otherwise alter the limits
of any area for which a Nikah Registrar has been licensed whenever the
Government deems it fit to do so.

Moulvi Md
Khurshid Alam vs Bangladesh, Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and
Parliamenary Affairs and others 50 DLR (AD) 82.

 

Section 4–

The
provision of the Act and the Rules made thereunder irresistibly show that a
Nikah Registrar is a public servant.

Kazi Obaidul
Haque vs State 51 DLR 25.

 

Section 4–It is not correct to say there the impugned notifications offend
the principle of natural justice as the petitioner was not given any show cause
notice, the Government is well within its administrative power to create any
new area within the provision of law, and in such case no notice is necessary.

Ahsan Ullah
(Md) vs Bangladesh, and others 52 DLR 168.

 

Section 4–

With the
introduction of the 2nd proviso to section 4 of the Muslim Marriages and
Divorce (Registration) Act of 1974, rules for carrying out the purpose and
object of the Act were amended and substituted from time to time. Section 6(c)
of the General Clauses Act 1897 has no application thereto as there was no
repeal of any enactment.

Fazlur
Rahman & 38 others vs Government of Bangladesh and others 53 DLR 237.

 

Section 4–

Neither the
principle of natural justice nor question of vested right arises in the way of
passing an order for curtailment of the area of jurisdiction of the petitioner
within the permissible limit of area.

Fazlur
Rahman & 38 others vs Government of Bangladesh and others 53 DLR 237.

 

Section 4–

Rule 10, in
its amended form, has been formulated in the public interest. There is no
conflict between it and ‘the second proviso to section 4 of the Act because the
Government has retained its power under section 4 of the Act to alter and
curtail the area of a Nikah Registrar’s jurisdiction subject to the maximum
area provided by rule 10.

Hafez Bazlur
Rahman vs Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs and ors 5 6DLR
444.

 

Section 4 Proviso–

The
Government has the power under the second proviso to section 4 of the Act to
extend, curtail, alter or otherwise alter the limits of any area.

Raisuddin vs
Bangladesh and others 51 DLR (AD) 152.

 

Section 4, 2nd Proviso–

The use of
the words “a Nikah Registrar has been licensed,” in the last portion
of the above quoted proviso clearly show that the intention of legislature is
to extend, curtail or otherwise alter the limits of any area for which a Nikah
Registrar has already been licensed.

Manjurul
Haque and 12 others vs Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of
Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, and others 51DLR261.

 

Section 4, 2nd Proviso–

If it is
conceded that petitioners of some of the respective Rules appointed before
25–11–82 had acquired any vested right the same has rightly been taken away by
amendment made with effect from the said date by inserting 2nd proviso to
section 4 of the Act of 1974.

Manjurul
Haque and 12 others vs Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of
Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs and others 51 DLR 261.

 

Section 6–

In the case
of a marriage, where the right of divorce is delegated, and entered into before
1974, Section 6 of the said Act lays down that a Talaq-i-Tawfeez should not be
registered by the Nikah registrar unless the marriage is a registered one under
the Registration Act of 1908, and for the marriages which have taken place
since 1974, the Muslim Marriages and Divorces (Registration) Act, 1974 will apply
and an attested copy of an entry in the register of marriages will be required
for registration of Talaq-i-Tawfeez.

Atiqul Huque
Chowdhury vs Shahana Rahim and another 47 DLR 301.

 

Section 6–

Govemment is
bound to invite fresh applications for appointment of permanent Nikah
Registrars.

Manjurul
Haque and 12 others vs Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of
Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, and others 51 DLR 261.

 

Sections 6 & 9–

Dower in a
Muslim marriage forms an inseparable part of the terms of the Kabinnamah and
thus as the Kabinnamah is intended to be registered under the 1974 Act, so is
the dower. The Act of 1974 is, in force relating to the registration of Muslim
marriages including dower.

Atiqul Huque
Chowdhury vs Shahana Rahim and another 47 DLR 301.

 

Sections 15 & 16–

By amendment
of the Ordinance of 1961 and the repealing of the Act of 1876, the present Act
and Rules provided for registration of Muslim marriages and divorces taking
away the power of issuing licences to the Nikah Registrars from the Union
Parishad or Pourashava to the Government and District Registrar.

Manjurul  Haque and 12 others vs Bangladesh,
represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary
Affairs, and others 51 DLR 261.

 

Muslim
Marriages and Divorces (Registration) Rules, 1975

 

Rules 5A & 8 –

Mr Razzak
has referred to a decision in the case of Md Aftabuddin vs Government of
Bangladesh in an unreported decision in Writ Petition No. 2136 of 1994.

Fazlur
Rahman & 38 others vs Government of Bangladesh and others 53 DLR 237

 

Rule 10 –

The right
given under previous Rule 10 was taken away by subsequent amendment and, as
such, the question of affecting the vested right of the petitioner does not
arise.

Raisuddin vs
Bangladesh and others 51 DLR (AD) 152.

 

Rule 10 –

Rule 10, in
its amended form, has been formulated in the public interest. There is no
conflict between it and the second proviso to section 4 of the Act because the
Government has retained its power under section 4 of the Act to alter and
curtail the area of a Nikah Registrar’s jurisdiction subject to the maximum
area provided by rule 10.

Hafez Bazlur
Rahman vs Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs and ors 56DLR 444.

 

Rule 10(2) –

The second
proviso to section 4 of the Muslim Marriages and Divorces (Registra­tion) Act
has empowered the Government to extend, curtail or otherwise alter the limits
of any area for which a Nikah Registrar has been licensed whenever the
Government deems it fit to do so.

Moulvi Md
Khurshid Alam vs Bangladesh, Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and
Parliamentary Affairs and others 50 DLR (AD) 82.

 

Rule 12–

The
provision of the Act and the Rules made thereunder irresistibly show that a
Nikah Registrar is a public servant.

Kazi Obaidul
Haque vs State 51 DLR 25.

 

Section 13–

A fixed
deposit receipt is not a promissory note and not a negotiable instrument within
the meaning of this section.

Ansarul
Huque vs Agrani Bank 48 DLR 479.

 

Muslim Marriages and Divorces (Registration) Act, 1974


Muslim Marriages and Divorces (Registration) Act [LII of 1974]


Section 4—

The provision of the Act and the Rules made there under
irresistibly show that a Nikah Registrar is a public servant.

Kazi Obaidul Haque vs State 51 DLR 25

Section 4, 2nd
Proviso—

The use of the words “a Nikah Registrar has been
licensed,” in the last portion of the above quoted proviso clearly show
that the intention of legislature is to extend, curtail or otherwise alter the
limits of any area for which a Nikah Registrar has already been licensed.

Manjurul Haque and 12 other vs Bangladesh, represented by the
Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, and others 51
DLR 261


Section 4, 2nd
Proviso—

If it is conceded that petitioners of some of the respective
Rules appointed before 25-11-82 had acquired any vested right the same has
rightly been taken away by amendment made with effect from the said date by
inserting 2nd proviso to section 4 of the Act of 1974.

Manjurul Haque and 12 other vs Bangladesh, represented by the
Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, and others 51
DLR 261


Section 6—

Government is bound to invite fresh applications for
appointment of permanent Nikah Registrars.

Manjurul Haque and 12 other vs Bangladesh, represented by the
Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, and others 51
DLR 261


Sections 15 & 16—

By amendment of the Ordinance of 1961 and the repealing of
the Act of 1876, the present Act and Rules provided for registration of muslim
marriages  and divorces taking away the
power of issuing licences to the Nikah Registrars from the Union Parishad or
Pourashava to the Government and District Registrar.

Manjurul Haque and 12 other vs Bangladesh, represented by the
Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, and others 51
DLR 261.


Muslim Marriages and Divorces (Registration) Rules, 1975


Rule 12—

The provision of the Act and the Rules made there under
irresistibly show that a Nikah Registrar is a public servant.

Kazi Obaidul Haque vs State 51 DLR 25

 

Muslim Marriages and Divorces (Registration) Act, 1974

Muslim Marriages and Divorces (Registration) Act, 1974

Section-4

The
amendment of Section 4 in the parent Act, 1974 came on 1.12.82 by which second
proviso was added and as such the Govt. retain the power to curtail/extend the
area and the question of retrospectivity does not arise as the curtailment of
the area took place after 1982. In the meanwhile, Rule 10 of Rules, 1975 was
amended on 30.12.97. The impugned orders were passed on 10.6.98 and 17.6.98
whereby the area in which a Nikah Registrar has been licensed was further
curtailed. The orders having been passed after amendment of Rules 10 of Rules,
1975, those are not retrospective in nature. As a matter of fact those are
prospective in nature—The petitioner’s licence as a Nikah Registrar has not at
all been revoked affected but under the second proviso of Section 4 of the Act
his area has been curtailed which the Government is authorised under the law to
do.

Mr. Raisuddin Vs.
Bangladesh & Ors. 7BLT (AD)-332

Section-4

Second
Proviso of the Section 4 has empowered the Government to extend, curtail or
otherwise alter the limits of any area for which a Nikah registrar has been
licensed, whenever the Government deems it fit to do so.

Moulavi Md. Khurshid
Alam Vs. Ministry of Law, Bangladesh 6BLT (AD)-196

Section-4

The
petitioner’s licence as Nikah Registrar has not been cancelled but the areas of
his jurisdiction has been curtailed which the government has the power to do.

A.H.M. Lutfor Rahman
Vs. Bangladesh & Ors 8 BLT (AD)-133

Section —4

General Observation

We have
given our anxious consideration and find that if the words “in the prescribed
manner” are inserted there in Section 4 of the Muslim Marriages and Divorces
(Registration) Act, 1974 omitting the phrase “whenever thing fit so to do” like
Section 4 of the Pourashava ordinance, 1977 and Section 3 of the Union Parishad
Ordinance, 1983 and if the “manner” is specifically provided in the Rules the
second proviso to Section 4 may hold good. It is not necessary to struck down
this proviso. Interpretation of statute is necessarily in favour of maintaining
the statute, if possible.

Moulana Ruhul Mannan
Helali Vs. Government of Bangladesh & Ors. 11 BLT (HCD)-336

Section-4 read with Muslim Marriages and
Divorces (Registration) Rules, 1975

Rule-12

Whether Nikah
Registrars are public servant.

The
Nikah Registrar shall perform the duties of their office under the general
superintendence and control of the Inspector General of Registration. Besides,
a Nikah Registrar cannot resign his office or leave the place in which he has
exercised the function of a Nikah Registrar without permission of the
Government —Held A Nikah Registrar is a public servant.

Kazi Obaidul Haque
Vs. The State 8 BLT (HCD)-340

Muslim Marriage and Divorces (Registration) Rule, 1975

Rule-10

It
appears that the petitioner was appointed as Nikah Registrar for the areas of 3
unions and that he has been acting as an agent of the Government in the matter
of registering the marriage and realisation of the taxes for the purpose. The
very appointment has not created no legal right in the said post inasmuch as
Second Proviso to section 4 of the Muslim Marriage and Divorces (Registration)
Act, 1974 and the Rule 10 of the Muslim Marriage and Divorces (Registration)
Rule, 1975 has been considered and found to be valid by this Court in 51 DLR
(AD) 152.

Md. Nasir Uddin Vs.
Govt. of Bangladesh & Ors 16 BLT (AD) 151.

 

Muslim Marriages and Divorces (Registration) Act, 1974

 

Muslim Marriages and Divorces (Registration)
Act, 1974

 

Section-4

The petitioner’s licence
as Nikha Registrar has not been cancelled but the areas of his jurisdiction has
been curtailed which the government has the power to do.

A.H.M. Lutfor Rahman Vs.
Bangladesh & Ors 8BLT(AD)-133

 

Section-4 read with

Muslim Marriages and Divorces (Registration) Rules, 1975

Rule-12

Whether Nikah Registrars
are public servant

The Nikah Registrar
shall perform the duties of their office under the general superintendence and
control of the Inspector General of Registration. Besides, a Nikah Registrar
cannot resign his office or leave the place in which he has exercised the
function of a Nikah Registrar without permission of the Government —Held : A
Nikah Regiatrar is a public servant.

Kazi Obaidul Haque Vs.
The State 8BLT (HCD)-340

 

Section -4

General Observation

We have given our
anxious consideration and find that if the words “‘in the prescribed
manner” are inserted there in Section 4 of the Muslim Marriages and
Divorces (Registration) Act. 1974 omitting the phrase “whenever thing fit so to
do” like Section 4 of the Pourashava ordinance, 1977 and Section 3 of the Union
Parisad Ordinance, 1983 and if the ‘”manner” is specifically provided
in the Rules the second proviso to Section 4 may hold good. It is not necessary
to struck down this proviso. Interpretation of statute is necessarily in favour
of maintaining the statute, if possible.

Moulana Ruhul Mannan Helali
Vs. Government of Bangladesh & Ors. 11
BLT (HCD)-336.