Page No.# 1/6 vs Rozina Parbin on 5 February, 2026

                                                                   Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010116282025




                                                             2026:GAU-AS:1584

                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                    Case No. : CRP/2/2026

            JAMAL UDDIN AHMED
            S/O LATE AMANULLAH @ BOGA MASTER, VILL- SOUTH RANGAPANI
            PART II, P.S- BOKO, DISTRICT- KAMRUP, ASSAM.



            VERSUS

            ROZINA PARBIN
            W/O JAMAL UDDIN AHMED, D/O ROFIJUL MONDAL, RESIDENT OF
            VILLAGE DOLGAMA, COLLEGE PARA, P.S- MATIA, DISTRICT- GOALPARA,
            ASSAM. PIN- 783339.



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. Y ALI, MR. A ALI

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. I H SAIKIA,
                                                                       Page No.# 2/6


                                 BEFORE
              HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

                                       ORDER

05.02.2026

Heard learned counsel Mr. A. Ali for the petitioner, 'X' and learned counsel Mr. I. H. Saikia for the respondent, 'Y'.

2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is a tutor working in a provincialised school and he has fixed income of Rs. 12,600/- per month (at present 14,000/- per month). It is further submitted that now the petitioner is burdened by the demand of the respondent (wife) who has demanded the mohur fixed at Rs. 5,17,860/-.

3. The petitioner is at present paying a monthly maintenance of Rs. 7000/- per month to his wife. He has his own family and he has unable to meet the expenses of both the families. The petitioner is aggrieved as the mohur was manipulated while filling up the format of the marriage and Kabin Nama. The mohur was fraudulently enhanced from Rs. 51,000-/ to Rs. 5,17,860/-.

4. The cross-examination of the Kazi as PW-5 reveals that the amount written in words was manipulated, whereas the amount in figures remained the same in the form which was filled up to register the marriage or the Kabin Nama.

5. The petitioner has thus, prayed to set aside the order passed by the learned Trial Court in TS No. 19/2019 wherein vide judgment and order dated 23.09.2024, the petitioner was directed to pay the dower/ Moharana of Rs. 5,11,510/-.

Page No.# 3/6

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent laid stress in his argument that the so called format alleging manipulation of the amount of Moharana in words was not produced as evidence during trial. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Kabin Nama was signed later on by the attesting witnesses, as well as by the parties and the Kazi cannot be accepted, as the evidence of all the witnesses clearly reveals that the Kabin Nama was signed on the date of marriage. It is further submitted that the petitioner being a teacher was well aware of the amount of Moharana fixed at the time of signing the Kabin Nama and he could have easily refused to affix his signature. Now at this stage when the petitioner has prayed for payment of the entire mohur, he through his written statement has falsely alleged manipulation of the form.

7. It submitted that criminal case which was brought up against the Kazi, the respondents as well as the bride's father was dismissed as no material could be found against the arraigned accused to proceed in a case alleging forgery and manipulation of documents.

8. The issue no. 3, which includes the petitioner's plea, was elaborately discussed by the learned Trial Court. It has been held by the court that the document Ext-1 is the foundational document relied upon by the petitioner as well as the respondent. The document was duly exhibited, thereby satisfying the requirements of sections 61, 62 and 64 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 (the Evidence Act for short). It was observed that section 67 of the Evidence Act deals with proof of signature and handwriting of person alleged to have signed or written the document produced.

9. It was held by the learned Trial Court that the plaintiff/respondent exhibited her signature as well as the signature of the defendant/petitioner as Page No.# 4/6

Ext-1(i) and Ext-1(ii) on the original document. In her cross-examination PW-1 stated that the amount of Rs. 5,70,860/- was written by the Kazi in her presence and Idrish Ali, Kobat Ali, Billal Hussain and Moinul Hoque were present at the time of the execution of the Kabin Nama. Kobat Ali as PW-3 and Billal Hussain as PW-4 have substantiated the evidence adduced by the respondent/plaintiff.

10. It was further observed by the Trial Court that the cross-examination of the PW-4, Billal Hussain, on the basis of the defendants question depicts that Abdul Kalam was the Kazi who performed the marriage of the plaintiff and the defendant. The Kazi as PW-5, has testified that he has solemnized the marriage between the parties by executing the Kabin Nama, Ext-1, and he had affixed his signature on the document and has proved his signature as Ext-1(iii). PW-5 further stated that the bride and the groom were also present and they have affixed their signatures on Ext-1. As per mutual agreement between both the parties, the mohur was fixed at Rs. 5,17,860/-, out of which the groom paid Rs. 6,350/- to the bride on the same day with the remaining amount to be paid later.

11. After discussing elaborately the evidence of PW-1, 3, 4, and 5, it was held by the Trial Court that the witnesses have complied with the requirement of Section 67 of the Evidence Act. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narbada Devi Gupta Vs. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal, reported in AIR 2004 SC 175, "that the legal position is not in dispute that mere production and marking of a document as exhibit by the court cannot be held to be a due proof of its contents. Its' execution has to be proved by admissible evidence i.e., by the evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue."

Page No.# 5/6

12. The decision of the learned Trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity. It has been correctly held that the Ext-1 has been duly proved. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the cross- examination of PW-5 which has also been elaborately discussed by the learned Trial Court. PW-5 has denied in his cross-examination that the Kabin Nama was fabricated. He admitted that the photo copy of the marriage form reveals an eraser mark in the amount noted down in words but there was no manipulation in the numerical amount of the mohur.

13. The petitioner has also submitted that an FIR was registered as Matia P.S. Case No. 29/2022 under Sections 420/468 of IPC against the Kazi, the bride and her father but it has been admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this case was dismissed.

14. The petitioner has stressed upon the manipulation of the amount in the proforma required to be filled up by the parties to solemnize their marriage which has to be registered in the form of a Kabin Nama. It is submitted that as the amount of Moharana has been manipulated and increased to Rs. 5,17,860/-, and as the petitioner is already paying Rs. 7000/- per month out of Rs. 14,000/-, he is being burdened by the unjustified demand of the respondent. This format which the petitioner has claimed to have been manipulated and the Moharana increased through this format has not been produced as evidence.

15. It is submitted that the original format is not available with the petitioner. The contentions of the petitioner can be safely brushed aside as the document which forms the basis of the case of the petitioner has not been produced, even as secondary evidence. Although plea was taken in the written statement, that the amount of Rs. 51,000/- has been enhanced fraudulently to Rs. 5,17,860/-, yet the petitioner has failed to prove these allegations through the evidence Page No.# 6/6

adduced by the petitioner. The evidence of DW-2 cannot be taken into consideration as DW-2 was not a witness at the time of execution of the Kabin Nama.

16. In view of the foregoing discussions, I record my concurrence to the decision of the learned Trial Court and thereby this review petition is dismissed as the petition is devoid of merits.

17. There shall be no order as to costs.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant