Unpaid dower must be paid when wife demands it: HC

The High Court has observed that a Family Court may order compensation for a wife if her husband, despite having the financial ability, fails to pay her dower and forces her to seek recovery through court.

The High Court also held that under Muslim family law, a husband cannot impose deferred dower in a Nikahnama without the wife’s consent. Once the wife demands the dower, it must be treated as prompt dower and becomes immediately payable.

The observations came in a judgment dismissing a civil revision petition filed by a husband challenging a Family Court judgment concerning dower and maintenance.

A single-member High Court bench headed by Justice Md Abdur Rahman delivered the judgment on September 3, 2026, in the civil revision case of Yaqub Ali vs Sanjida Nasrin. A 32-page copy of the judgment was published on the Supreme Court website on Tuesday, October 6.

Advocate Md Nazer Uddin represented the petitioner, while advocates Ishrat Hasan and Tanzila Rahman Jui appeared for the respondent, assisted by advocate Iffat Hasan Shammi.

According to the judgment, Yaqub Ali married Tanzida Nasrin on December 19, 2014, in accordance with Shariah, with the dower fixed at Tk22 lakh. The couple later had a daughter.

In 2017, following disputes over dowry demands and family discord, Tanzida Nasrin was driven out of the matrimonial home. She was subsequently divorced by her husband.

After the divorce became effective, the wife filed a case with the Chattogram Family Court in 2019 seeking payment of the outstanding dower, maintenance during the iddat period and maintenance for their daughter.

On May 25, 2022, the Senior Assistant Judge’s Court (Family Court) in Chattogram delivered judgment and decree in favour of the wife.

The court ordered the husband to deposit Tk20.40 lakh within 60 days. The amount comprised Tk18 lakh as dower, Tk30,000 as maintenance for the iddat period and Tk2.10 lakh as arrears of maintenance for the daughter.

It also ordered monthly maintenance of Tk7,000 for the daughter until her marriage, with a 10 percent annual increase.

The husband filed a family appeal before the District Judge’s Court in 2023, challenging the ex parte judgment. The Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Chattogram, dismissed the appeal on August 19, 2024, upholding the lower court’s judgment.

Yaqub Ali then filed the civil revision petition before the High Court in 2024.
During the High Court proceedings, the husband’s lawyer argued that he had already paid Tk5.65 lakh of the decreed amount.

Citing business losses, the lawyer said his current financial condition prevented him from paying the remaining amount in a lump sum and sought permission to pay the outstanding dower and maintenance in instalments on humanitarian grounds.

Opposing the petition, advocate Ishrat Hasan argued that the husband, despite having the financial ability, was deliberately delaying the legal rights of his wife and daughter.

She submitted that the subordinate courts’ judgments were based on evidence and law and that there was no scope for interference by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction.

After examining the circumstances, relevant verses of the Holy Quran and prevailing principles of Muslim law, the High Court observed that it had no authority to waive or remit any portion of the dower.

However, a wife may voluntarily waive or relinquish all or part of her dower in favour of her husband.
The court said any such waiver must be proved through sufficient evidence to have been made knowingly, specifically and voluntarily. A waiver obtained through coercion, undue influence, fraud or any circumstance undermining free consent cannot be treated as valid.

The court also observed that, considering the facts, circumstances and submissions of both sides, the dower in the case had not been fixed according to the financial capacity or social status of the bride and groom. Therefore, neither party had scope to depart from the terms of the written civil contract.

On maintenance, the High Court found that the subordinate courts had reached consistent findings regarding maintenance during the iddat period and for the minor child.

“In the present circumstances, considering the economic inflation, housing costs and the expenses associated with festivals for a school-going minor child, such maintenance is necessary,” the court said.
The High Court ultimately found no legal error, deficiency or jurisdictional defect in the subordinate courts’ judgments and decrees warranting its interference.

“I am, therefore, constrained to disagree with the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the Rule has no merit and is dismissed without any order as to costs,” the court said.

The concerned office was directed to immediately send the subordinate court records along with a copy of the judgment and order.