Thursday, November 19, 2009

Dower Cases

PLJ 2009 Peshawar High Court 169
Present to: Muhammad Alam Khan
MALIK SAEED AHMED VersusMrs. ASAMA BIBI
----S. 115--Limitation Act 1908, Art. 164--West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964, S. 5--Judgment and decree passed by ADJ in appeal and passed by Civil Judge--Revision against--Suit was filed on the direction of First Appellate Court--Condonation of delay--Respondent (plaintiff) was constrained to file a suit before the Family Court for recovery of dowery articles but Appellate Court, directed to file the suit before Civil Court--Parties were locked into litigation for sufficiently long time the exparte decree was passed while the application for setting aside the same was moved by the petitioner which was not within stipulated period--Civil revision was dismissed for condonation of delay.
Judgement Result: Revision dismissed
PLJ 2009 Lahore High Court 324
Present to: Syed Shaheen Masud Rizvi
Mst. SAIRA ZULFIQAR VersusTHE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN and 2 others
----S. 5 & Sch.--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--Suit for recovery of dower amount, gold ornaments and property under Iqrarnama--Dower amount decreed--Appeal rejected--Concurrent finding--Constitutional petition--Marriage being a contract--Amount of dower was independent in itself and the property and gold ornaments were in addition to the said amount of Haq-ul-Mehar--Gold ornaments and the property were in lieu of amount of Haq-ul-Mehar stands totally falsified by evidence on record--Courts below erroneously and illegally held that petitioner is not entitled to the property mentioned in Nikahnama and Iqrarnama--Petition accepted.
Judgement Result: Petition accepted.
PLJ 2009 Lahore High Court 326
Present to: Zafar Iqbal Chaudhry
IMRAN MOAZZAM VersusADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE WITH POWERS JUDGE FAMILY COURT PAK PATTAN SHARIF and 3 others
----S. 5 & Sch.--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--Suit for recovery of maintenance and dower--Question of maintenance--Trial Court fixed Rs. 8000/- per month--Appellate Court enhanced at upto Rs. 10,000--Constitutional petition--Validity of--Held: Trial Court fixed Rs. 8000/- per month and Appellate Court enhanced it upto Rs. 10,000--No objection if the amount enhanced is reduced to that which was fixed by trial Court--Evidence which has been properly discussed by Court below, the maintenance Rs. 8000/- was reasonable--Enhancement by the Appellate Court is set aside--Petition dismissed accordingly.
Judgement Result: Petition dismissed.
PLJ 2009 Sh.C-AJ&K 17
Present to: Iftikhar Hussain Butt
MUHAMMAD JAVAID VersusMst. ZARRIA BEGUM
----S. 14--AJ&K Family Courts Procedure Rules, 1998, R. 22(i)--Limitation Act, 1908, Ss. 12(2)(3) & (4)--Suit for recovery of dower and the suit for dissolution of marriage were filed--Ex-parte decrees were passed--Assailed--Appeals were filed after expiry of prescribed period of limitation--Validity--Appeal against a decision or a decree passed by Family Court can be presented within 30 days of the date of decision or decree--Instant appeals were filed after nine days of expiry of prescribed period of limitation--Held: Rule 22(1) of AJK Family Courts Procedure Rules, postulates that an appeal u/S. 14 of Family Courts Act, shall be preferred within 30 days of the passing of decree or decision excluding the time requisite for obtaining copies thereof, provided the Appellate Court can, for sufficient cause extend the period--Appeals were dismissed being hopelessly time barred.
Judgement Result: Appeals dismissed
PLJ 2009 Sh.C-AJ&K 20
Present to: Iftikhar Hussain Butt
MUHAMMAD SHAFAAT VersusMst. RIFFAT SHAHEEN
----S. 286--Dower as compensation--Decree of dower amounting rupees one lac was passed--Assailed--Suit for recovery of dower that at the time of nikah ceremony, the dower was fixed rupees one lac but with mala-fide intention rupees twenty-five were incorporated in nikahnama--Agreement deed was executed that in case of separation, appellant will pay compensation as dower, and maintenance allowance to minor--Validity--An amount of dower can be fixed even after the marriage and can also be increased--Dower is payable to the wife even it has not been specified at the time of `Nikah'--Held: Impugned decision for recovery of dower does not smack of any illegality--Family Court has appreciated and appraised the evidence and no ground for interference in the impugned decision has been made out--Appeal was dismissed
Judgement Result: Appeal dismissed
PLJ 2009 Sh.C-AJ&K 28
Present to: Sardar M. Ashraf Khan
GULSHAN BEGUM VersusMUHAMMAD WAHEED
----R. 5--Dower--Suit for recovery--Jurisdiction of Family Court--Trial Court has erred, while holding that it is not vested with the jurisdiction to hear the suit--Section 5 of the Family Courts Rules, envisages that the Family Courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the matters in Schedule 5, where apart from other matters, the suit pertaining to dower is also included in the schedule for the reason that matrimonial disputes of all kinds listed in the Schedule 5 by now are to be exclusively tried by Family Courts
Judgement Result: Appeal accepted
PLJ 2009 Lahore High Court 461
Present to: Kh. Farooq Saeed
KHURRAM ZULFIQAR ALI VersusMst. BENISH MUBARAK and another
----Art. 199--Constitutional petition--Forgery in nikahnama at columns--Suit for recovery of dower, dowry articles--During the proceedings receipts of dowry article were filed--Objected to be as forged--Challenge to--Piece of evidence should not be deprived to bring on record--Receipts of dowry articles produced by respondent were forged hence should not be allowed to be exhibited--Question of--Presentation of document by one person and exhibiting--Interocutory order--Evidential value--Validity--Law of evidence and Civil Procedure Code not being applicable the concept of exhibiting a document in a civil case would not apply in a family matter--Permission to allow to exhibit a document even in civil case does not amount to its acceptance as an alternate evidence--It was only a receipt and acknowledgment and permission to make it a part of record--One can always challenge its validity, correctness or genuineness during cross-examination at the time of final argument--Held: If some body wants to bring on record certain piece of evidence he should not be deprived from doing so--Every authority as far as possible should not refuse to entertain the evidence produced by parties in support of their claim--Authorities, therefore, need to be benevolent in receiving, however, prudent in accepting its evidential value--Petition was dismissed.
Judgement Result: Petition dismissed.
PLJ 2009 Lahore High Court 520
Present to: Ali Hassan Rizvi
SABIR HUSSAIN VersusNUSRAT BIBI
----S. 12--Constitution of Pakistan 1973, Art. 199--Suit for recovery of dower and maintenance allowance--Judgments of Family Court and Appellate Court--Constitutional petition--Held: Marriage between the spouses still existed--Claim of the wife was that petitioner/husband had given her 100 kanal land, as dower out of which 50 kanal was got mutated in her favour at the time of nikah--Petitioner never alleged as to how the entry in nikahnama was fictitiously made, after nikah--There was no legal justification to deny the dower settled and maintenance claimed--Appellate Court was final Court of fact--No misreading or non-reading of evidence found--Petition dismissed in limine
Judgement Result: Petition dismissed.
PLJ 2008 Lahore High Court 862
Present to: Muhammad Muzammal khan
Mst. NAUREEN TAHIRA and 2 others VersusADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MANDI BAHAUDDIN and another
----S. 5 (amended Ordinance LV of 2000)--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--Jurisdiction--Constitutional petition--Petitioner filed two distinct suits, one for recovery of maintenance allowance for her children and recovery of dowry articles--Second suit was separately dealt--Appellate Court modified the decree--Assailed order--Voluntarily relinquishment--Marginal evidence--Question of recovery mentioned in Nikahnama could be resolved by Family Court--Validity--Suit in-question cannot be considered as part of dower amount--Nikahnama was not recoverable through Family Court established under Muslim Family Courts Act, yet such findings were given being oblivious of amendment introduced in Schedule Part-I conferring jurisdiction to Family Court for recovery of personal property and belongings of a wife--Question of recovery mentioned in Nikahnama could be resolved by Family Court--Held: Impugned appellate judgment revealed that controversy was correctly put to rest and net result drawn was not tainted with any factual illegality/error--Lawful decision within abmit of conferred jurisdiction cannot be substituted on present petition which being devoid of any merit is dismissed.
Judgement Result: Petition dismissed.
PLJ 2007 Peshawar High Court 6
Present to: Salim Khan and Hamid Farooq Durrani
CHAN ZEB VersusMst. KHALIDA SHAHEEN and another
----Ss. 9 & 12-A--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--Amended to effect--Maintainability--Suit for restitution of conjugal rights and vice versa--Facilitated the parties and get dispute decided at one and same forum--Plea of restitution of conjugal rights shall be made in suit for dissolution and marriage and plea of dissolution of marriage shall be brought forward against suit for restitution of conjugal right and separate suit shall not be filed--Validity--Law has never been intended to create hurdle, problems and difficulties for the spouses or for Courts dealing with their matter--Held: Only the cases of restitution of conjugal rights and dissolution of marriage were prescribed to be dealt with in same proceeding while the cases of dower, dowry maintenance, recovery of personal property of the wife and any other related matters covered by provisions of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, may be dealt with independently--Petition was dismissed.
Judgement Result: Petition dismissed
PLJ 2007 Supreme Court 340
Present to: Abdul Hameed Dogar & Mian Shakirullah Jan
IFTIKHAR AHMAD VersusMst. JEHAN ARA & 3 others
----Respondent filed a suit for maintenance and recovery of dowery--Trial Court summoned the petitioner through registered A.D, same returned unserved--Court published a notice against petitioner in newspaper but in vain--Ex-parte decree was passed--After 1 year petitioner moved an application for setting aside ex-parte decree--Without mentioning valid and cogent ground and without an application for condonation of delay--Address given by the petitioner was the same as mentioned in plaint--Trial Court adopted all legal modes for affecting the service on petitioner--Trial Court was justified to pass ex-parte order against the petitioner who was supposed to file application for setting aside ex-parte decree within the stipulated period of limitation--Being the family member had the full knowledge of the case--There was no reason to believe that the petitioner did not know about the suit--No legal infirmity in the judgment of the High Court, which was neither slip shot nor arbitrary--Leave to appeal refused.
Judgement Result: Leave refused.
PLJ 2007 Lahore High Court 584
Present to: Iqbal Hameed-ur-Rehman
MUHAMMAD ZAFAR YAB VersusADDITIONAL DITRICT JUDGE
----S. 28--Dissolution of marriage--Benefit of compromise/statement--Principle of estoppel would be fully attracted in the instant case--Petitioner would had the full opportunity of contesting the suit for dissolution of marriage and thereafter seeking its further remedies in accordance with law--Respondent made the statement and achieved the benefit of the statement and after filing of the suit for recovery of dowery article, in contrary to her undertaking in a Court of law, cannot be justified--Principle of estoppel will apply but Courts below have failed to look into such aspect of the case by not taking into consideration that respondent through her acceptance of the petitioner's statement and her statement had also used the process of law in getting benefit--It was a simple undertaking before a Court of law to avoid the rigorous of trial--It was a compromise effected between the parties on the basis of which respondent was granted the decree for dissolution of marriage by the Family Court.
Judgement Result: Petition accepted.
PLJ 2006 Peshawar High Court 160
Present to: Ijaz-ul-Hassan and Fazal-ur-Rehman Khan
MUHAMMAD ZAMAN VersusMst. SIRAJ & 2 others
----S. 5--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--Constitutional Petition--Dower--Determination of dowery--Suit partially decreed--Appeal disposed of--Assailed--Both Courts below have concurrently found that respondent/ petitioner entitled for recovery of gold ornaments, possession of agricultural land and residential house--Sufficient material was available on record in support of claim of respondent--No reliable evidence has been produced in rebuttal--Courts below have appreciated evidence on record and High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction cannot interfere with findings of fact, even if on appraisal of evidence it was possible to reach to different conclusion unless it was shown that such findings by lower Court suffered from vice of misreading/non-reading of evidence, which had affected findings on merit--Held: No substance in petition and same dismissed.
Judgement Result: Petition dismissed.
PLJ 2006 Peshawar High Court 166
Present to: Ijaz-ul-Hassan and Fazal-ur-Rehman Khan
SAIF-UR-REHMAN VersusANARKALI & 2 others
----Art. 199--Recovery of dowery maintenance and damages for mental torture--Suit partially allowed--Appeal dismissed, assailed--Validity of evidence--Constitutional petition--Counsel did not point out single paragraph from impugned judgment which could indicate misreading, discarding or non-consideration of any piece of evidence--Courts below have correctly appreciated evidence on record and High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction cannot interfere with finding of fact, even of with appraisal of evidence, it was possible to reach to different conclusion, unless it was shown that such findings by lower Courts suffered from misreading/non-reading which has affected findings on merits--Held: Impugned judgments and decrees were neither based on misreading/non-reading of evidence nor same had been recorded in violation of law--Petition accordingly dismissed.
JudgemenPLJ 2006 Quetta High Court 9
Present to: Raja Fayyaz Ahmed, C.J., and Akhtar Zaman Malghani, J.
MUJTABA VersusRAZIA and 2 others
----Ss. 5 & 9--Sched.--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--Suit for dissolution of marriage, recovery of dower amount, maintenance allowance and for the custody of the minors against the petitioner--Ex parte decree was passed against the petitioner--Defendant, at the time of passing of ex parte decree, was in judicial lock up--Even in civil proceedings, if an order, be it a final or interlocutory, adverse to interest of any party concerning his rights in personam or in rem had been passed and if such person be in jail, he had to be informed accordingly, through the Superintendent of jail--No such information, was conveyed to defendant (petitioner) in respect of decree, therefore, it could not be assumed, in absence of other material, that he had active knowledge of the ex-parte decree passed against him nor even application submitted before Appellate Court seeking condonation of delay in appeal beyond prescribed period of limitation was contested by the plaintiff by filing counter affidavit--Such aspect of the case germane to question of limitation was not attended to by the Appellate Court nor validity or legality of impugned decree based upon proceedings ordered to be taken ex parte, were taken into consideration by Appellate Court, which consequently rendered its judgment and decree as not sustainable--Order passed by the Family Court whereby the defendant was ordered to be proceeded ex parte was a nullity in eye of law, void and without jurisdiction--Subsequent proceedings taken in case and ex parte decree passed in consequence thereof also were without any legal effect and that being so, made the question of limitation pertaining to the filing of appeal as worthless and to no credence--High Court, set aside the said orders declaring same to be of no legal effect--Suit instituted by plaintiff as ordered to be expeditiously decided as provided by law after hearing the parties--Defendant, subject to the final decision by the Family Court, was directed to deposit with the Family Court interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1200 per month w.e.f. the specified date for the three minors/daughters of the spouses presently in the custody of their mother (plaintiff).
Judgement Result: Order accordingly
t Result: Petition dismissed
PLJ 2006 Peshawar High Court 162
Present to: Shahzad Akbar Khan and Ijaz-ul-Hassan
UMAR FAROOQ VersusMEHNAZ IFTIKHAR & 2 others
----Consideration of dowery--Entitlement--Validity--Appellate Court proceeded on wrong premises to hold that Mst. "M" was entitled for recovery of specific amount value dowry articles--Dowry list attached with plaint has not been proved at all--Finding returned by appellate Court betrays lack of proper application of mind and cannot be allowed to remain intact--Petition filed by husband partially accepted, whereas petition of wife dismissed.
Judgement Result: Order accordingly
PLJ 2006 Lahore High Court 35
Present to: Sh. Hakim Ali
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN VersusJUDGE FAMILY COURT KEHROR PACCA DISTT. LODHRAN
----Art. 199--Availability of remedy of writ in suit for recovery of dowery articles--Validity--As a substitute for the appeal or revision with regard to those decrees for which legislature in its wisdom, has closed remedy of appeal or revision through statutory provision--Exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 199--There must be grave injustice being done to the parties to the proceedings--Petition dismissed.
Judgement Result: Petition dismissed
PLJ 2006 Lahore High Court 39
Present to: Sh. Hakim Ali
Mst. MUSSARAT BIBI VersusSHAH MUHAMMAD & another
----S. 5--Jurisdiction of family Court--Suit for recovery of dower amounting to Rs. 500/- and two acres of land--Contention--Entries nikahnama forged and fictitious with regard to land family Court has no jurisdiction--Held: S. 5 granted exclusive jurisdiction to the Family Court to adjudicate upon the the cases provided in the schedule attached to family Court Act--Dower is one of the items shown in the schedule--Nature, quantum even the recovery of dower all question are to be considered to have been covered by S. 5 read with schedule of the Family Court Act--Impugned order illegal--Petition accepted.
Judgement Result: Petition allowed.
PLJ 2006 Lahore High Court 719
Present to: Fazal-e-Miran Chauhan
Mst. SHAZIA KAUSAR VersusMUHAMMAD AHMED and another
----Ss. 9 & 10--Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199--Suit for maintenance and recovery of dower--Suit was decreed--Preferred appeal, accepted--Assailed--Non-payment of prompt dower--Entitlement--Appellate Court failed to note essential legal implication for non-payment of dower that wife was under no obligation to live with husband and husband was duty bound to maintain wife during period of separation--Failure of Appellate Court to consider facts of jurisdiction--Impugned order was declared without lawful authority that both appeals were to be deemed pending for fresh decision.
Judgement Result: Petition disposed of.
PLJ 2006 Lahore High Court 927
Present to: Muhammad Jehangir Arshad
MUHAMMAD AZAM VersusA.D.J., etc.
----S. 6--Entitlement of dowry without dissolved of marriage or death--Suit of respondent for recovery of dower was dismissed--Appeal allowed by First Appellate Court--Assailed--Validity--Question of--Deferred dower cannot be claimed unless marriage is dissolved by death of either party or till dissolution--Held : Dower whether prompt or deferred is inalienable right of wife and after consummation same becomes vested right for wife to claim at any time--First Appellate Court neither committed any illegality or irregularity nor same suffer from any jurisdictional defect--Petition was dismissed.
Judgement Result: Petition dismissed.
PLJ 2006 Lahore High Court 1260
Present to: Muhammad Muzammal Khan
ABDULLAH VersusNAILA ASLAM and 3 others
----Ss. 5 & 7--Muslim Family Law Ordinance, (VIII of 1961), S. 9--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--Suit for granting of maintenance allowance and recovery of dower amount as per agreement--Suit decreed and appeal was dismissed--Assailed--Enhancement of dower amount--Husband did not refuse his liability to pay maintenance allowance awarded to wife and minor son--Wife could not prove enhancement of dower amount and agreement by her was forged--Wife claimed in plaint, not only produced agreement executed by husband enhancing the dower amount but also examined its marginal witnesses--Denial of execution by the petitioner appeared to be after thought and was put forth just to avoid liability to pay enhanced dower amount--No effort on his behalf was ever made for comparison of signature from handwriting expert by moving application before Courts below which negatively reflects on his stance in written statement--Held: Dower amount was fixed in nikahnama but same under Islamic Law could have been enhanced by husband at any time during subsistence of marriage--Lawful decision within jurisdiction could not be substituted on petition and dismissed.
Judgement Result: Petition dismissed
PLJ 2003 Peshawar High Court 329
Present to: MUHAMMAD QAIM JAN KHAN
MUHAMMAD AAMIR and another VersusMst. SHABANA NISAR and 2 others
--S. 5 & Sched.-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199-Respondent wife's suit for recovery of dower, maintenance and dissolution of marriage decreed by two Court's below, assailed-'-Evidence on record being on factual matters was thrashed by two Courts below-Conduct of father of petitioner makes it crystal clear that plot of land was entered in dower deed in Nikahnama and subsequently such entry was denied by petitioner while admitted by his father-Petitioner did not appear in Family Court for conciliation proceedings-All such factors does not entitle petitioner to avoid concurrent decree, and judgment of two courts of competent jurisdiction in discretionary jurisdiction of High Court, therefore his Constitutional petition against the same was dismissed.
Judgement Result: Petition dismissed
PLJ 2003 Lahore High Court 94
Present to: FARRUK LATEEF
GUL MUHAMMAD TABASSAM VersusMst. GULSHAN ARA etc.
-S. 5 & Sched.-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199-Suit for recovery of dower amount decreed by Courts below, assailed-Concurrent findings by Family Court and Appellate Court cannot be successfully assailed in writ jurisdiction, unless Courts had exceeded jurisdiction, acted without jurisdiction or findings were based on no evidence-High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction cannot sit as a Court of appeal and cannot substitute findings of facts recorded by Courts below, as such, matter should be decided by Courts invested with jurisdiction to decide them.
Judgement Result: Petition dismissed.
PLJ 2002 Supreme Court 399
Present to: MUHAMAMD BASHIR JEHANGIRI AND NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI
FIAZ-UL-HASSAN VersusMst. JAN SULTAN and 2 others
--S. 5-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)-Leave to appeal-Recovery of dower-Suit of wife was decreed by Family Court ex parte against husband but same was allowed by Lower Appellate Court with condition to deposit decretal amount as security in cash and decree was set aside-Husband did not deposit amount and suit was again decreed against him-Decree passed against husband was assailed in Constitutional petition which was dismissed by High Court-Validity--Husband completely ignored to challenge order of deposit of decretal amount passed by Lower Appellate Court before same Court for review or before 'High court in Constitutional petition and thus by implication husband had accepted order of Lower Appellate Court and went to Family Court without demur-Where husband had participated in proceedings but did not file written statement as directed by Lower Appellate Court, Family Court rightly struck off defence of husband and passed decree for recovery of dower amount-Both Courts below and High Court were justified to have passed order for deposit of amount of dower before remanding suit to Family Court for trial-Leave refused.
Judgement Result: Leave refused.
PLJ 2002 Sh.C-AJ&K 1
Present to: FTIKHAR HUSSAIN BUTT
Mst. DILSHAD BANO VersusIMTIAZ HUSSAIN and another
-S. 14-Recovery of dower money after divorce of plaintiff-Defendant's claim that plaintiff while obtianing "Khula" had compromised with defendant to the effect that if he divorced her through "Khula" she would forego her claim of dower money and thus, plaintiff having obtained Khula was not entitled to claim dower amount was convincing and proved on record-Remission of dower being act of plaintiffs free will and consent was not assailable and parties to such bilateral agreement were bound by the same-Plaintiff was, therefore, not found entitled to claim dower money.
Judgement Result: Appeal dismissed.
PLJ 2001 Supreme Court 288
Present to: IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY AND DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH
Syed MUHAMMAD VersusMst. ZEENAT and others
-S. 5 & Sched-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-Decree for recovery of prompt dower against petition or execution proceeding-Plea of petitioner that execution proceedings were time barred was repelled by trial Court-Appellate Court accepting time barred plea set aside execution proceedings-High Court restored order of Executing Court- Validity-Decree for recovery of dower would be deemed to be in respect of prompt dower in as much as, tie off marriage existed between the parties-Provisions of S. 48 C.P.C. cannot be pressed into service for execution of such decree, in that, S. 17 of Family Courts Act, 1964 postulates that C.P.C. except Sections 10 and 11 thereof, would not be applicable to proceedings before Family Court-As for limitation, reliance has to be placed on residuary Art. 181 of Limitation Act which provides period of three years when right to apply accrues-Nature of liability being of prompt dower, recognition of which has been made judicially by Family Court in favour of respondent, the same has to be recovered during subsistence of marriage, therefore, no specified period of limitation for implementation of decree of such nature can be fixed in as much as, due to subsistence of marriage, no specific period of limitation for implementation of such decree can be fixed for the reason that due to subsistence of marriage, judgment debtor i.e., husband, having acknowledged right of his wife would be deemed to remain under legal obligation to satisfy decree whenever decree holder/wife moves legal forum for satisfaction of her right-As and when proceedings of execution were launched that date would be treated as denial by judgment debtor to satisfy liability of prompt dower and execution proceedings for the recovery of the same would be considered within time as per requirement, of Art. 181 of Limitation Act, 1908-No interference was thus, called for in impugned judgment passed by the High Court-Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgement Result: Leave refused.
PLJ 2001 Lahore High Court 282
Present to: MAULVI ANWAR-UL-HAQ
NAZER AHMAD VersusADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, D.G. KHAN and another
-S. 5 of Sched.-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199~Suitfor recovery of prompt dower-Suit was dismissed by Trial Court-Appellate Court in appeal, however, decreed plaintiffs suit-Validity-Defendant sought to take advantage of the principle of "As-Sumat", however, apart from non- production of evidence in proof thereof, he failed to make proper pleadings to press into service such principle-Prompt dower to the extent of specified amount was recorded in "Nikahnama", which being duly filled up and registered in accordance with law is a public document-Parties were bound by the recital, contained in "Nikahnama"--There. was no plea or vidence that any amount was privately fixed as dower other than the dower mentioned in "Nikahnama"-Dower publicly announced and evidenced by register deed would be accepted while provisions of Articles 101 and 102 of Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984, would render oral vidence to prove dower to be fictitious one in admissible-No interference was, thus, warranted in the judgment and decree of Appellate Court whereby plaintiffs suit was decreed.
Judgement Result: Petition dismissed.
PLJ 2001 Lahore High Court 292
Present to: MAULVI ANWAR-UL-HAQ
TALIB HUSSAIN VersusADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AKIFWALA and 2 others
-S. 11-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199-Res-judicata, plea of- Respondents's earlier suit was for recovery of specified amount of dower- Respondent lady subsequently made statement in court that her suit be dismissed as withdrawn-Trial Court, however, recorded judgment on merits holding that specified amount was fixed as prompt dower but the same was paid in the form of 20 tolas golden ornaments and dismissed plaintiffs suit-Respondent then filed another suit for recovery of same amount of dower-Petitioner took plea of res-judicata praying that the suit being on the same cause of action and relating to the same amount be dismissed~Effect~Judgment in earlier suit was not a judgment finally deciding Us between the parties by adjudication within meaning of S. 11 of C.P.C.~Judgment in question, was at the most was dismissal by withdrawal of suit-Rigours of C.P.C. and Qanun-e-Shahadat are not applicable to proceedings under Family Courts Act except to the extent provided in S. 17 thereof-Withdrawal of suit would not therefore, constitute any bar to the filing of fresh suit-Trial Court had committed error of jurisdiction while proceeding to decide suit on its merits when respondent had made prayer for withdrawal of the same-High Court in constitutional petition was not inclined to stifle the suit filed by respondent lady on basis of earlier judgment which in any event was wholly unjust,
Judgement Result: Petition dismissed.
PLJ 2000 Lahore High Court 872
Present to: MRS. FAKHAR-UN-NlSA KHOKHAR
MUHAMMAD ASLAM VersusMst. SURRAYA
--Ss. 5, 23 & Sched.-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199-Wife's claim for specified amount of dower was decreed by Appellate Court-Validity-Petitioner claimed that contents ofNikahnama wherein specified amount of dower was entered was incorrect-Validity of marriage registered under S. 23, Family Courts Act 1964, would not be questioned in any Family Court nor would any evidence in regard thereto be admissible before such Court-Whenever marriage was questioned through fraud or misrepresentation on the ground that wife had not given free consent to marriage or marriage was fasid or was opposed to Muslim Laws or was out come of fraud remedy was not available in Family Court but the same was available in Court of general jurisdiction-Marriage under Muslim Law being civil contract, transaction of dower becomes complete on day of marriage-Endorsement of dower against columns in nikahnama is verification of settlement and arrangement already reached between parties-Whenever any woman makes demand through filing suit for recovery of dower, person who contends that entries in nikahnama were not correct, he was bound to rebut those entries through strong evidence otherwise Courts were bound to give solemn affirmation to entries in nikahnama-Petitioner has not produced any cogent evidence in rebuttal of entry relating to dower amount in nikahnama, therefore, judgment and decree of Appellate Court decreeing respondent, claim for down amount was un-exceptionable and was maintained in circumstances.
Judgement Result: Petition dismissed.

3 comments:

  1. Malik Muhammad Sajid Awan
    Advocate High Courts of Pakistan
    Family Laws and all other Civil Law Cases
    Rawalpindi, Islamabad,
    0345 930 1606

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brother Ahsan
    A.A. you are doing well ,plz keep it up. One thing I have noted that only PLJ references are mentioned, why not other books? Would you consider it? Badar Haddad.Adv: Khairpur

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nice work...
    Keep it up...!!

    Abdul Jalil Khan Advoacte
    High Court Bahawalpur

    ReplyDelete