Ornaments were recorded in the Nikah Nama later on, whereas, no dower was fixed at the time of Nikah; that the suit

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as the marriage of respondent No. 3 with the petitioner was intact at the time of filing of suit and passing of decree, therefore, the respondent No. 3 was not entitled to recover the alleged deferred dower from the petitioner. In this respect he has placed reliance upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as “Saadia Usman and another Vs. Muhammad Usman Iqbal Jadoon and another” (2009 SCMR 1458). He further contended that the entries regarding the dower amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and 5-tolas gold ornaments were recorded in the Nikah Nama later on, whereas, no dower was fixed at the time of Nikah; that the suit of respondent No. 3 to the extent of recovery of 5-tolas gold ornaments mentioned in column No. 17 of the Nikah Nama was not competent before the learned Judge Family Court, Mian Channu. To substantiate his contention he has placed reliance upon “Muhammad Awais Vs. Mst. Zahida Parveen” (PLD 2012 Lahore 38); that respondent No. 3 left his house at her own and she was not entitled to recover any maintenance allowance; that the learned lower courts have fixed maintenance allowance of respondent No. 3 at very excessive rate against the law and facts of the case. 

Part of Judgment : 

LAHORE HIGH COURT MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN 

WP- Family Law

11586-13

2015 LHC 3917