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.
