Learned counsel for the petitioner contends
that receiving of the gold ornaments (worth
Rs.100,000/-) as dower was specifically denied by
the petitioner in paragraph No.4 of the plaint. The
entries in the Nikah Nama regarding payment of
dower were alleged to have been wrongly written
or tampered. Since the petitioner had denied
receiving of dower in the shape of gold ornaments,
therefore, family court was bound to record
evidence by framing issue regarding receiving of
the dower amount. He submits that decision of the
learned appellate court regarding exclusion of oral
evidence in presence of documentary evidence is
against the provisions of Section 17 of the Family
Courts Act, 1964.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
on the judgment of this Court in the case of Wahidul-Islam versus Shaheen Akhtar and 2 others
reported as 2011 CLC 566. He has also relied on
two judgments of Sindh High Court in the cases of
Abdul Sattar versus Mst. Kalsoom (PLD 2006
Karachi 272) and Aurangzeb versus Mst. Gulnaz
and another (PLD 2006 Karachi 563).
2014 LHC 2125
Used In Judgment of:
Lahore High Court
WP- Family Law
337-12
0 comments:
Post a Comment