B1/2001/0140

Neutral Citation Number: [2001] EWCA Civ 563_2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM WATFORD COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge Roger Connor)
								Royal Courts of Justice
								Strand
								London WC2

								Friday, 30th March 2001

B e f o r e:

LORD JUSTICE THORPE

- - - - - -

TAHURA MANNAN
Petitioner/Respondent

- v -

MOHAMMED ABDUL MANNAN
Defendant/Applicant

- - - - - -

(Computer Aided Transcript of the Palantype Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street,
London EC4A 2AG
Tel: 0171 421 4040
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

- - - - - -

The Applicant appeared in person.

The Respondent did not appear and was not represented.

- - - - - -

J U D G M E N T
Friday 30th March 2001 
1.	LORD JUSTICE THORPE: Dr Mannan and his first wife were both born in what was then East Pakistan, and they were married on 5th August 1950. They were married under Islamic law and the marriage was therefore potentially polygamous. Of that marriage there were seven children, the youngest of whom is now in mid‑thirties. Dr Mannan is a consultant physician and most, if not all, of his children are professionally qualified people. 
2.	In 1986, after 36 years of marriage to his first wife, Dr Mannan, as he was perfectly entitled to do, took a second wife. Of that second marriage there are four children. Very sadly, the first marriage broke down and, long after the parties had separated, the first Mrs Mannan brought a petition for divorce in this country relying on the fact that she and her husband had been apart for five years. There could be no answer to that simple factual proposition. But when the petition was served on Dr Mannan in 1998, he said that there was no subsisting marriage upon which the English Court had jurisdiction to rule for there had been an earlier divorce in Bangladesh in 1993. So the simple issue for the judge to decide was whether or not the asserted Bangladeshi Talak divorce of 1993 had taken place and was valid according to the law of the place, which, it was agreed between the parties, was section 7 of the Muslim Family Law Ordinance 1961. 
3.	Both Dr Mannan and his wife were represented by counsel at the trial that took place before His Honour Judge Roger Connor in the Watford County Court in December 2000. At the end of the trial, when all the issues of fact had been investigated and when counsel had made their submissions, the judge had this to say: 
“I agree with the submissions of both counsel, that this case, which might conceivably have given rise to a number of very interesting questions of law, does not in fact do so; it is a case that turns entirely upon its facts. The central question is, was there a divorce by the pronouncement of Talak in the presence of the Petitioner in March 1993? ... 
Upon that central issue, and notwithstanding the volume of evidence, both oral and documentary, produced in support of the [husband's] case, I prefer the evidence of the [wife]. I do so for a number of reasons. Firstly, her evidence, as I said a moment ago, was given in a straightforward manner and has been consistent throughout, in contrast with that of the Respondent, whose account has changed and grown as the case has progressed. Secondly, the envelopes produced by the [husband], said to have contained the notices given to the [wife], are manifest forgeries.”
4.	The judge, on the following page, dealt with official documents which had been produced from Bangladesh in support of the husband's case. He said:
“So far as the official documents from Bangladesh are concerned - by which I mean the copies of entries in registers and so forth - I think I am bound to treat those with caution, if not scepticism, bearing in mind, firstly, that we have three forged documents ... produced by the [husband]. ... 
Secondly, I think I am bound also to be somewhat sceptical about the fact that the missing notice of the giving of Talak is said to have been found by the officials in the office of the Chairman of the Union Parishad, they having confirmed in writing to the [wife] that they were unable to find any record of the giving of such a notice. 
Thirdly, I bear in mind the incorrect entries in the certificate of the registration of the Talak with the Kazi to which I have already referred. 
There are a number of other matters which cause me to have doubt about the credibility of the [husband], to which I have been referred by Mr Church [counsel] on behalf of the [wife], which I do not think I need to enumerate. 
Accordingly, I accept the evidence of the [wife] that there was no Talak pronounced in March 1993 and, therefore, that there can have been no effective notice to the Chairman or registration of a Talak. If there was no Talak there can be nothing of which to give notice or to register. In those circumstances it is not necessary for me to decide the issues of Bangladeshi law, to which I have been referred.” 
5.	In my opinion, that is conclusive of the litigation between this couple. The investigation of fact is for the judge of trial. The assessment of the credibility of the essential witnesses is for the judge of trial. It is not for this court to allow a case to come in for a full appeal hearing in such circumstances unless it can be shown that the judge in the court of trial has plainly gone off the rails. There is no single criticism of his factual findings or of his assessment of witnesses which has been made out. There is nothing to demonstrate that the conclusions which he reached were the result of error or misdirection. 
6.	This application for appeal must accordingly be dismissed. 
Order: Application dismissed.