Denmohor is wife's right, financial hardship no excuse for husband: HC
The court says genuine financial hardship may justify payment in instalments, but no court can waive a woman’s dower.
The High Court has observed that dower or denmohor is a wife's independent financial right and a legal liability incurred by the husband through marriage.
Financial hardship alone cannot absolve a husband of the obligation to pay the amount fixed in the nikahnama, though an executing court may allow payment in instalments if genuine financial hardship is proved.
Justice Abdur Rahman delivered the judgment on 3 September in Iqbal Ali vs Sanjida Nasrin, with the full verdict published on the Supreme Court website today (6 October).
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
The couple married on 29 December 2014 with a Tk22 lakh dower and have a daughter. The wife alleged that her husband later demanded Tk20 lakh in dowry, drove her out and failed to properly support their daughter after 2017. They later divorced.
She sued at the Chattogram Family Court for dower and maintenance. As the husband did not appear, the court issued an ex parte decree on 5 May 2022 ordering Tk18 lakh in dower, Tk30,000 for three months' iddat-period maintenance and Tk2.10 lakh in arrears for the daughter – Tk20.40 lakh in total.
He was also ordered to pay Tk7,000 monthly until her marriage, rising 10% annually.
He later deposited Tk1.50 lakh, sought cancellation and appealed, but his appeal was dismissed on 19 August 2024. He then moved the High Court, claiming financial hardship after losing his business and seeking instalments.
Referring to Islamic law, the court said dower is not an ordinary or optional gift but a financial right of the wife and a liability created against the husband through marriage. Unless she voluntarily relinquishes it, the husband has no right to take it back.
The court noted that the Muslim Marriages and Divorces (Registration) Rules, 2009 provide separate entries in the nikahnama for dower, including prompt and deferred dower and amounts already paid. However, merely recording deferred dower does not allow a husband to indefinitely withhold payment if the wife claims it. Where applicable, it may become payable as prompt dower.
Justice Abdur Rahman described dower as an "unsecured debt" and an "actionable claim" owed by the husband and said it should be paid as soon as possible. If a wife has to seek court intervention despite the husband having the ability to pay, the trial court may, depending on the circumstances, also consider awarding compensation.
The court clarified that no court has the authority to waive a woman's dower. A wife may, however, waive all or part of it voluntarily, provided she acts freely and without pressure, fraud or undue influence. If such a waiver is claimed, there must be evidence that it was made independently and voluntarily.
The High Court also upheld the maintenance order for the daughter, saying the needs of a school-going child, including food, housing, education and other necessities, must be assessed in light of the prevailing economic situation, inflation, housing costs and festival expenses.
The court ultimately dismissed the husband's revision petition, finding no legal or jurisdictional error in the lower courts' decisions and leaving the Tk20.40 lakh decree intact.
