Case Law and Judgment (Bridal Gift given by husband was absolute property of the wife under the provisions ....)

1991 CLC 1696

خاوند کی طرف سے بوقت شادی تحفے وغیرہ بیوی کی ملکیت ہوں گے ان کا چھیننا یا زبردستی واپس لینا قابل سزا اور جرمانہ ہے

(a) Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑S. 8‑‑‑Khula'‑‑‑Contention that all issues having been decided against wife, she was not entitled to the decree of divorce on the ground of Khula'‑‑‑Held Khula` being an independent ground was not contingent on the, fate of other issues.

(b) Dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Act (XLIII of 1976)‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑S. 5‑‑‑Bridal Gift given by husband was absolute property of the wife under the provisions of the Act and could not be snatched away‑‑‑Violation of such provisions would entail a penalty of fine and imprisonment.

Ch. Abdul Majid Gondal for Petitioner.

GHULAM RASUL VS JUDGE, FAMILY COURT
1991CLC1696
[Lahore]
Before Falak Sher, J
GHULAM RASUL‑‑‑Petitioner
versus
JUDGE, FAMILY COURT‑‑‑Respondent
Writ Petition No.2844 of 1991, decided on 13/04/1991.

ORDER

Petitioner's matrimony with respondent No.2 having been conceived, through Nikahnama dated 15‑2‑1985 did not prove to be successful, resultantly, the latter sought dissolution of the marriage on 13‑10‑1987 on the ground of habitual cruelty, false accusation of adultery, immorality, non‑payment of maintenance and Khula` which was responded by the petitioner with a suit for restitution of conjugal rights and the learned trial Court having framed the following issues out of the consolidated pleadings of the parties:‑--

"(1) Whether the defendant has been habitually cruel to the plaintiff? OPP

(2) Whether the defendant is a man of bad character? OPP

(3) Whether the defendant accuses the plaintiff with false charges of adultery? OPP

(4) Whether the defendant has not maintained the plaintiff for a period over three years? OPP

(5) Whether the plaintiff has obtained any benefit out of this wedlock? OPD

(6)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula`? OPP

(6‑A) Whether the plaintiff has any justification to live separately from the defendant? OPP

(7) Relief."

decided all other issues against the respondent and decreed the suit on the ground of Khula` vide the impugned judgment dated 23‑1‑1991 legality whereof has been assailed in these proceedings contending that all the issues having been decided against the respondent she was not entitled to the decree of divorce on the ground of Khula` for which no consideration has been awarded despite the fact that the petitioner on the eve of marriage had bestowed unto her certain ornaments as bridal gifts in addition to a cash of Rs.7,000, entrusted to her father for meeting the marriage expenses.

I am afraid, both the contentions are misconceived. Qua the first contention it suffices to observe that Khula` is an independent ground and is not contingent on the fate of other issues, while the second argument loses sight of the fact that not only the bridal gifts become absolute property of the wife under Bridal Gifts (Registration) Act, 1976, violation whereof is to be visited with a penalty of fine and imprisonment as well, but also it is in evidence that the same were in fact snatched away by the petitioner soon after the marriage, while the alleged contribution towards the marriage expenses can't be classified as benefits derived by the respondent; resultantly, the petition being devoid of any substance is hereby dismissed in limine.

G‑455/LPetition dismissed.