Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. In Ameer Ali's Treaties on Mahommedan Law (vol. II, third edition) the following statement of law occurs at page 482 :

"......As there is nothing in the Koran or in the traditions tending to show that the integral payment of the dower prior to consummation is obligatory in law, the later jurisconsults, says M. Sautayra, have held that a portion of the meher should be considered payable at once or on demand, and the remainder on the dissolution of the contract, whether by the divorce or the death of either of the parties. The portion which is payable immediately, is called the mahr-i-muajjal 'prompt' or 'exigible', and a wife can refuse to enter the conjugal domicile until the payment of the prompt portion of the dower. The other portion is called mahr-i-muwajjal 'deferred dower', which does not become due until the dissolution of the contract. It is customary in India to fix half the dower as prompt and the remaining moiety as deferred or 'postponed'; but the parties are entitled to make any other stipulation as they choose. For example, they may allow the whole amount to remain unpaid until the death of either the husband or the wife. Generally speaking, among the Mussulmans of India, the deferred dower is a penal sum, which is allowed to remain unpaid with the object of compelling the husband to fulfil the terms of the marriage contract in their entirety......"

10. At page 483, it is stated :

"It is also lawful to stipulate that them husband should pay as much as he can at once, and the remainder at some fixed time later."

11. It is thus clear that dower is treated as a sum agreed in consideration of the marriage. In Muslim law, marriage is a civil contract; dower is a matter of agreement between the parties; it can be agreed upon at the time of marriage; it can also be agreed upon after the marriage; it can be enhanced after the marriage by mutual consent, or relinquished, as the case may be, by the wife. It is open to the parties to agree that the dower fixed shall be partly prompt, and partly deferred; they can agree upon the quantum which is to be treated as prompt, and that which is to be treated as "deferred". It is open to the parties to agree that the whole of them dower shall be prompt; it is also open to them to agree that only a certain small amount shall be prompt and the major portion shall be "deferred". In short, it is a matter of mutual agreement - the law only says that there shall be dower, leaving the rest to be agreed upon between the parties. For instance, it is open to the parties to a marriage to agree that the whole of the dower amount agreed upon shall be 'prompt' dower. If so, we fail to see any disability or bar to the parties agreeing that the amount agreed upon as deferred dower at the time of marriage shall be treated as prompt dower at any point of time after the marriage, before the deferred dower becomes actually due as per the initial agreement. No textual prohibition to the said effect is brought to out notice, nor was any cited in the Bench decision relied upon by the Revenue. It is true that, where a particular amount is agreed upon as deferred dower, the wife cannot claim a unilateral right to call upon the husband to pay the same before the happening of the stipulated event; but, if she chooses to make a demand, we see no bar, in principle, to the husband agreeing to it. Indeed, even without such a demand, the husband can choose to pay the deferred dower either during his lifetime, or before the marriage is dissolved by divorce. A husband may be of the opinion that, instead of driving his wife, after his death, to proceed to claim and realise her dower from his estate after his death, it would be more convenient and appropriate to pay the said sum even during his own lifetime and thus save the wife from the botheration, or the necessity, of realising it from out of his estate. The matter can be looked at from another angle too bearing in mind that it is essentially a matter of agreement between the parties, which can also be varied later by mutual agreement. Take a case, where A takes a loan from B agreeing to repay it after the expiry of, say, one year. In such a case, it will not be open to B to demand the payment of the amount before the expiry of one year. But, nothing prevents A from offering to pay the said debt before the expiry of one year and if he so offers, it is also open to B to receive and accept the same. No one can say in such a case - not does the law say - that, since the period of one year has not expired, B cannot accept the amount and that both parties should necessarily wait for the expiry of one year to pay and receive the amount - unless, of course, there is a law to that effect or the initial agreement specifically says so. It should be remembered that the deferred dower is in the nature of a debt - an unsecured debt. The husband is in the nature of a debtor, and the wife is in the nature of a creditor. The deferred dower is payable, ordinarily, on the dissolution of marriage by death of divorce; but, there is nothing in Muslim law to prevent a husband from choosing to pay the said debt before the happening of the stipulated event, and the wife from accepting it, though it may be that the wife may not be entitled to claim or enforce such a claim before the happening of the stipulated event. This view is supported by the following decisions :

15. Now we shall refer to the decisions relied upon for the Revenue which, according to the learned counsel for the Department, take a contrary view. Reliance is first placed upon the decision in Mirza Ali v. Mt. Qadari Khanam, AIR 1919 Lahore 139; 50 IC 774. In that case, a learned single judge held that, in view of the proviso to s. 24 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1907, the amount of deferred dower cannot be entered in the schedule of debts of the insolvent (husband). It is relevant to notice the facts of the case. The insolvent (husband) entered only the amount of prompt dower in the list of debts submitted by him. His wife, however, got the full amount of both prompt, and deferred dower, entered in the schedule, on the reasoning that an unconditional order of discharge will release the insolvent from any amount due as deferred dower under s. 45(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The learned judge, while agreeing that the said consequence does indeed follow, observed :

"When once it was agreed that the dower shall become due on dissolution of the marriage, the parties have no option to pay or demand payment, as the case may be, in respect of the said dower prior to the dissolution of marriage. Hence, the husband is not bound or obliged in law to pay the amount of the original or enhanced dower during the subsistence of the marriage. Nor can the wife demand the payment of the same before the dissolution of marriage either by death or by law...... The liability in the instant case is contingent on the specified subsequent event, i.e., the dissolution of marriage by death of either of the parties, or by divorce. Until and unless such contingency happens, the dower, in our opinion, must be held to be not due and payable by the assessees, not can their wives demand and claim for recovery of the same until the dissolution of their marriages......The parties are not competent under their personal law to convert the deferred dower into a prompt one either by their conduct or by executing any documents. That apart, the deferred dower would not become a debt owed by the assessee during the subsistence of the marriage.... The assessees either of their volition or with the consent of their wives are not entitled to make such a provision in the deeds executed by them. Such provision will be illegal and not binding on the parties, and much less on the Revenue..."