14. In the present case as per record 5-tolas gold ornaments are
mentioned in column No. 17 of the Nikah Nama (Ex. PI) and in
column No. 16 of the Nikah Nama it is clearly mentioned that no
property was given in lieu of dower. Therefore, the alleged claim of
respondent No. 3 that 5-tolas gold ornaments were mentioned in the
Nikah Nama as consideration for dower remains unproved. It has been
clearly held in the above referred precedent case that the learned
Family Court has no jurisdiction to decide the claim of wife regarding any amount or property mentioned in column No. 17 of Nikah Nama
as it falls out of ambit of Section 5 and Schedule of West Pakistan
Family Courts Act, 1964. Therefore, in these circumstances, I am of
the considered view that the learned trial Court as well as the learned
appellate court have not considered this aspect of the matter and the
suit of respondent No. 3 for the claim of 5-tolas gold ornaments has
been illegally decreed by the learned courts below. The judgments
referred by learned counsel for respondent No. 3 reported as (1) “Mst.
Razia Begum Vs. Jang Baz and 3 others” ( 2012 CLC 105), “Mst.
Ghulam Shaheena Vs. Judge, Family Court” (2010 CLC 87), and
“Liaquat Ali Vs. Additional District Judge, Narowal and 2 others
(1997 SCMR 1122), are not applicable in this case as in the referred
cases the property was given to the wife as dower, whereas, in the
present case 5-tolas gold ornaments are mentioned in column No. 17
of the Nikah Nama and the same were not given to respondent No. 3
in lieu of dower. Hence, findings of learned trial Court as well as
learned appellate court for passing the decrees regarding 5-tolas in
favour of respondent No. 3 are not sustainable under the law.
Resultantly, I reversed the findings of both the courts below on issue
No. 1 and decide the same against respondent No. 3.
Part of Judgment :
LAHORE HIGH COURT MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN
WP- Family Law
11586-13
2015 LHC 3917
0 comments:
Post a Comment