CRUX:
Abdul Kadir v.Salima and Ors(1886) ILR 8 All 149- In the present Appeal, the issue involved was whether the petition for restitution of conjugal rights might be filed before the payment of dower.
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
21/01/1886
JUDGE:
Justice W C Petheram, Straight, Oldfield, Brodhurst, Tyrrell
PARTIES:
Abdul Kadir (Appellant)
Salima and Ors(Respondent)
SUMMARY
In the present Appeal, the issue involved was whether the petition for restitution of conjugal rights might be filed before the payment of dower.
Brief
In the present case, there was a conflict between the suit for reinstatement of conjugal rights and the non-payment of dower. At one end of the case was the wife's claim for unpaid dower under Islamic law, and at the other end was the husband's complaint about the recovery of conjugal rights, a remedy lately made available by the colonial legal apparatus.
The same is viewed and decided by Allahabad HC in the year 1886.
Background Facts
For three months, Abdul Kadir was married to Salima, and the marriage was happy and cordial. After this time, the wife went to visit her parents, but her father refused to let her return to her nuptial home despite the husband's appeal.
A few days later, the matter was brought before a British Empire court forum in the form of a suit for recovery of conjugal rights brought by the husband against his father-in-law and wife.
The defendants' side reacted with their version of events, which included a divorce decree, non-payment of dower, and cruelty.
The defendants' first and third counterclaims were dismissed by the court of the first instance, however, the second counterclaim, namely non-payment of dower, was determined to have some legal merit.
Even though the kind of dower was not established on the eve of marriage, the husband was required to pay a portion of it as prompt dower in the event of non-payment, according to the court.
It's worth noting that the husband deposited the entire sum of dower in the court during the case hearing. The court issued a conditional judgment for reinstatement of conjugal rights on payment of dower, based on the deposit of dower.
The decision was challenged by both parties to the appellate court. While dismissing the husband's appeal, the court found that because the dower was not paid before the litigation was filed, the husband lacked standing to seek judicial remedy.
The parties were hauled before the Allahabad high court as a result of this judgment. On the issue of maintainability of the claim on non-payment of dower, the court's division bench referred the case to the full bench.
Core Issue
Whether the petition for restitution of conjugal rights might be filed before the payment of dower?
Court’s Observation and Decision
Justice Syed Mahmood's affirmative opinion was approved by the full bench of the high court. It's worth noting that Justice Syed Mahmood was a member of the division bench before which the case was first heard, but not the full bench that accepted his written opinion.
Justice Syed Mahmood expressed his views on three issues. The first concerned the nature of Muslim marriage and its consequences; the second concerned the nature of dower and the effect of its non-payment on the husband's right to reclaim his conjugal rights; and the third concerned how disputes/contests were resolved among various Hanafi school of law jurists.
The full bench answered the issue of maintainability of suit affirmatively, leaving the division bench to settle the remaining concerns after seeking guidance from the complete bench.
He cited and examined more than a dozen precedents, two of which had a greater impact than the others. The first is Moonshee BuzloorRuheem v Shums-oon-nissa Begum, which served as the basis for his judgment, while the second is Sheikh AbdooShukhoor v Raheem-oon-nissa, which was overruled.
“Marriage among Muhammadans is not a sacrament, but solely a legal contract,” Justice Syed Mahmood said.
He made it clear that the focus of his ruling was not to figure out the "nature of marriage," but rather to focus on the consequences and resulting rights and obligations of spouses.
He maintained that rights and obligations emerged simultaneously, such as cohabitation and dower payment, and that the performance of one was not reliant on the performance of the other. According to Muhammadan law, the right of cohabitation arises at the same time and for the same reason as the right of dower.” The suit for restitution of conjugal rights was transformed into a suit for reciprocal rights of cohabitation of couples, which enhanced the religious authenticity of the former case.
He observed that in present cases, the wisest course of action was to issue a conditional decree for the restitution of conjugal rights on payment of dower, as the court of the first instance did, rather than dismissing the claim for non-payment of dower, as the first appellate court did.
In the event of a suit by the husband, he decided that the defence of payment of dower could, at best, function to modify the decree for restitution of conjugal rights by making its enforcement conditional on payment of so much of the dower as may be regarded as prompt.
Conclusion
The present case influenced and contributed to the Indian Subcontinent's legal landscape in a variety of ways, particularly in terms of Muslim spouses' marriage relationships. It is best known for presenting the "civil marriage theory" regarding the nature of Muslim marriage. This claim is both factually incorrect and academically unsound.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
