Judgment 1. Amanullah is the husband. Nasreen Farhat is the wife. There has been discord between them. There is no issue before the court that their marriage ultimately ended up in a divorce. The issues between them still linger and have virtually become lawyers paradise. 2. The revision was filed by the husband when an amendment in the written statement was denied. In the written statement itself there is no mention about the Mehar at all. All that the husband says is that the kholanama denies the wife any Mehar. Virtually, he accepts that the Mehar was settled at Rs. 40,000/-. 3. The court is called upon to answer the niceties of the law as the husband resists payment of Mehar which was settled at the time of the marriage. He says that the divorce was sought by the wife. The wife takes issues and says that this is not so. Instead, she takes up a defence that after marriage her husband stayed under the roof of her father. This is another factor which has left friction. There is a counter claim of living expenses to be paid to the father-in-law. Between the two, now they seek hisab. The husband says he will not pay Mehar. The wife says all the expenditures incurred by her father in maintaining him has to be cleared and in addition some of her personal effects, lingerie not excluded are with the husband. 4. These are not matters of civil disputes, as a claim or a cross claim, and nothing will come out of this. The main discord is on the Mehar not paid. The marriage has broken down in any case. 5. Counsel for the petitioner referred to the concept of a muslim marriage. Thus, the court told learned counsel that issues between the parties then must be seen within their religion. Both were left free to address the court on what The Koran has to say in such a situation on not honouring the commitment to pay Mehar when a marriage breaks on divorce. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to guide the court on this aspect. 6. This matter was adjourned on the last occasion and anything which the court has expressed today should not surprise the parties. 7. A marriage has taken place between the parties under Muslim law. Neither of the parties deny that the Mehar was settled. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to guide the court on this aspect. 6. This matter was adjourned on the last occasion and anything which the court has expressed today should not surprise the parties. 7. A marriage has taken place between the parties under Muslim law. Neither of the parties deny that the Mehar was settled. The court will not permit the husband to make an issue that the payment of Mehar will be avoided or that the wife is not entitled to it. He lived with his wife under her fathers roof and also faces a counter claim innot having paid living expenses. A Mehar of a muslim woman is not meant for adjustments and set off. 8. Mehar is basically a word of honour and commitment which must be kept if the marriage ends in divorce. It is equity. Between the two, the husband and the wife, they may part company if they cannot be together. Therefore, the husband-petitioner before the court is obliged to deposit a sum of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) as Mehar before the court of Nayab Quazi, Imaratshariya, Phulwarisharif within one month from today. Thereafter, the Mehar be delivered to the wife Nasreen Farhat forthwith. 9. After deposit of the Mehar with the Nayab Quazi, the proceedings in Money Suit No. 144 of 1995, before Subordinate Judge, VIII, Patna between Nasreen Farhat and Amanullah shall be consigned. 10. Consigned.