Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset states
that he do not challenge the validity of impugned judgment and
decree to the extent of maintenance allowance as already expressed
by him before this Court on 04.08.2017. However, he challenges the
validity of impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts
below to the extent of alternate value of dowry articles as well as
dower in favour of respondent No.3. It is argued that the Courts
below have not adverted to the actual facts relating to dower while
awarding the decree. He has specifically mentioned that the contents
of Purt Nikah have a pivotal role in case of dower and as such entry
in Column No. 16 cannot be treated as the part of dower, therefore,
the learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court have not
considered this fact and wrongly decreed the suit. Similarly the value of dowry articles was also awarded in favour of the respondent No. 3
without considering the evidence of the parties as the respondent
No.3 has failed to prove the dowry articles of such value; therefore,
her claim is also liable to be dismissed. He relied upon “Mst. ISHRAT
BANO versus NOOR HUSSAIN and 2 others” (PLJ 2010 Peshawar 139
(DB), “Syed NADEEM RAZA through Attorney General versus Mst.
AMNA-TAZ-ZAHRA and 2 others” (2011 CLC 726), “UMAR FAROOQ
versus MEHNAZ IFTIKHAR and 2 others” (2006 MLD 555) and “LAL
MUHAMMAD versus Mst. GUL BIBI AND ANOTHER” (PLD 1986 Quetta
185)
Used in Judgment of
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition-Family-Maintenance
11306-15
2017 LHC 2850
0 comments:
Post a Comment