Dismissed

Anwar Tarikh v. Bulti Begum

Calcutta HC31 Aug 2026SAT/92/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal against the dismissal of a suit for dissolution of Muslim marriage was dismissed. The court held that res judicata barred the suit due to a prior dismissal, the talak lacked mandatory waiting periods, there was no proof of communication to the wife, and no independent witnesses were produced.

What did the court decide?

The appeal under SAT No. 92 of 2024 was dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure with no order as to costs.

Anwar Tarikh Vs Bulti Begum — Matrimonial and Divorce | Calcutta HC (2026)

¶1

D/L. 4. August 31, 2026. MNS.

¶2

SAT No. 92 of 2024

¶3

Anwar Tarikh Vs. Bulti Begam

¶4

Mr. Suresh Chandra Manna, Adv.

¶5

… for the appellant.

¶6

The present appeal has been preferred against a judgment of affirmance, whereby the plaintiff/husband’s suit for dissolution of a Muslim marriage was dismissed by both the courts.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the relevant extract from the marriage register was produced to indicate that the Kazi had formally recorded the talak and accepted the same.

¶8

However, from the discussions of the courts below, we find that a previous suit filed for the self-same relief by the appellant-husband was dismissed, thus, operating as res judicata .

¶9

Secondly, the talak was allegedly given by the appellant on August 27, 2018, whereas the certificate of talaknama was issued on the very next date, that is, on August 28, 2018, without leaving the mandatory waiting period for a valid triple talaq to be given.

¶10

Moreover, the learned first appellate court concurred with the learned trial Judge on the finding that the plaintiffappellant failed to produce any evidence that the talak so

¶11

¶12

pronounced by him was at all communicated to the defendant-wife.

¶13

Also, before the first appellate court, an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed to furnish the purported talaknama , without seeking to call any independent witness, including the concerned Kazi, as witness to prove the foundational fact of triple talak having been given in consonance with law.

¶14

In such view of the matter, we do not find any arguable case having been made out in the second appeal.

¶15

Accordingly, SAT No. 92 of 2024 is dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶16

No order as to costs.

¶17

Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.

¶18

(Sandip Kumar De, J.) (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

Anwar Tarikh v. Bulti Begum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anwar Tarikh v. Bulti Begum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases