November 21, 2018, 9:27 am

bd law reports

Offence under Section 6(5) of the Muslim Family Ordinance compoundable

Section – 6

56  DLR  (AD)  (2004)  141  Khandakar Abdul Hannan Vs. Sayara Begum – Offence under section 6(5) of the Muslim Family Ordinance compoundable,through not the appellant and the respondent having arrived at a compromise,dismissal of the appeal upon reduction of the sentence to the extent of the period already served merits considaretion.

26  BCR  2006  (HCD)  260  Nurul Absar (Md.) Vs. Md. Delel Ahmed Choudhury – The prove the second marriage of an accused kabinnama of the alleged 2nd marriage is not required to produce before the court and the moulana who conducted the 2nd marriage is also not necessary to examine as a witness if it is proved by evidences corroborating each other

56  DLR  (AD)  (2004)  141  Khandakar Abdul Hannan Vs. Sayara Begum – The offence under section 6(5) of the ordinance compoundable,through not the appellant and the respondent having arrived at a compromise,dismissal of the appeal upon reduction of the sentence to theextent of the period already served merits considaretion.

55  DLR  (2003)  568  Dilruba Akhter Vs.AHM Mohsin – In the absence of documentation  of permission obtained by the accused-respondent  from Arbitration council the inevitable conclusion is that the accused-respondent enter contract  for second marriage with without previous permission of Arbitration council and offence under section 6(5) of The Ordinance 1961 had been committed  and he may be fastened with guilt and comlainant-appellant could successfully bring home charge against accused-respondent to the hit.

55  DLR  (2003)  568 Dilruba Akther Vs.  AHM Mohsin – Talak in any form shall not stand effective and Talak shall be not Talak in the eye of law unless provision contained in section 7(1) is sternly complied with and in the event of subsistence of existing marriage no man can enter into second marriage and if he enters he shall contribute himself to be punished under 6(5) of the Ordinance.

 Section – 7

13  BLC  (2008)  327  Nur Nabi Vs. Salina Akther Doly – Consistent view of the superior  court is that non-compliance ofprovision of section 7 will render divorce ineffective.Unless there was complience of section 7, which is a mandatory provision of law,no divorce can be effective  as per section 7 of the mulim family Laws Ordinance

26  BCR  2006  (HCD)  76 Kazi Rashed Akther Vs. Most Rokshana Choudhury – Muslim family Laws Ordience for the purpose of effective the talak has provided that the causing of notice in writing to the Chairman, a copy thereof to the wife mandatory-no talak will be effective if the notice is served  upon the Chairman by the husband.Notice is to be geven to the Chairman where the wife to whom divorce has been pronounced was residing at the time of its pronouncement.The jurisdiction is determined by the residence of the wife and not by the place where the marriage was contracted or where the couple last resided together.It is not even in the permanent residence of the wife.

  55  DLR  (2003)  568 Dilruba Akther Vs.  AHM Mohsin – Talak in any form shall not stand effective and Talak shall be not Talak in the eye of law unless provision contained in section 7(1) is sternly complied with and in the event of subsistence of existing marriage no man can enter into second marriage and if he enters he shall contribute himself to be punished under 6(5) of the Ordinance.

 

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

     More News Of This Category