Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. As regards the Mahr is concerned, it was an admitted fact that it was a prompt dower and not a deferred dower. In the case of prompt dower, it is settled law that it will be payable at the time of marriage or on demand or at the time of dissolution of marriage. The observation made by the court below for denying the relief for Mahr is that since the marriage was consummated and they lived as husband and wife, it can only be presumed that the Mahr was paid and it was not due and without payment of dower, the marriage will be void and so it can only be presumed that the dower was paid and it was not due especially it was admitted by the parties that it was prompt dower and not deferred dower which appears to be not sustainable in law.

11. In the decision reported in Mahadeo Lal Jwala Prasad V. Mt. Bibi Maniran [A.I.R.1933 Patna 281] the Patna High Court held that a dower the payment of which may be postponed until demanded by the wife would be classed as prompt dower. In the decision reported in Mt.Maimuna Begam V. Sharafat Ullah Khan [A.I.R.1931 Allahabad 403], it has been observed that in a suit for dower, the court should fix the proportion to be treated as prompt dower having regard to the status of the family, the amount of dower and custom, if any prevailing in the plaintiff's family. Further, in the decision reported in Nasir-ud-din Shah V. Mt.Amatul Mughni Begum [A.I.R.(35) 1948 Lahore 135], Full Bench of the Lahore High Court has held that when it is not stated in the Kabin nama, whether the payment of the dower is to be prompt or deferred, the custom or usage of the wife's family or of the locality is in the first instance to determine what portion of the unspecified dower is to be prompt and what deferred and in the absence of proof of any custom, a presumption may be raised that one half of the amount stipulated was prompt and the other half deferred, but this presumption can be rebutted by either party and the proportion may be increased or reduced in accordance with the circumstances of each individual case. In considering those circumstances, the status of the wife and the amount of the dower must be taken into consideration.

12. Further, in the decision reported in Nawab Mirza Mohammed Sadiq Ali Khan and Others V. Nawab Fakr Jahan Begam and another [A.I.R.1932 Privy Council 13], the Privy Council has held that various amounts paid by the husband to the wife during the subsistence of marriage should not be presumed to have been paid in lieu of dower if it is not proved that the dower agreed was paid at the time of marriage either as a prompt dower or deferred dower. Further, in the decision reported in Mst.Manihar Bibi V Rakha Singh and Others [A.I.R.1954 MANIPUR 1 (Vol.41, C.N.1], it has been held that there is no authority for the view that the deferred dower agreed to be paid on death or divorce becomes prompt if demanded by the wife during the continuance of the marriage. In the decision reported in Bibi Rehana Khatun V. Iqtidar Uddin Hasan [A.I.R.(30) 1943 Allahabad 184], the Allahabad High Court has held that prompt dower may be realised by the wife at any time before or after consummation. Proof of connubial intercourse between the parties is not necessary for the payment. Further, in the decision reported in Smt.Rabia Khatoon V.Mohd.Mukhtar Ahmad [A.I.R.1966 Allahabad 548], it has been observed that in a suit filed by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights, wife can take a defence on the ground of non payment of prompt dower but that right will be lost after consummation of marriage. Once, consummation marriage is performed then she can enforce the same by separate action and she is not entitled to deny restitution of conjugal rights on that ground.