رسيدات کے بغیر ہی سامان جہیز کی واپسی کا مقدمہ ڈگری ہو سکتا ہے ۔ صرف سامان جہیزکی لسٹ کافی ہے ۔
2008 SCMR 1584
West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)---
----S. 5 & Schd.---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Suit for recovery of dowry articles by divorced wife was decreed by Family Court and amount of decree was modified and enhanced by the Appellate Court---Contention of the husband was that no such list of dowry articles was prepared at the time of marriage, same was fabricated subsequently and in absence of valid receipts of purchase of said articles, suit could not have been decreed and that Appellate Court was not legally justified to modify the decree passed by Family Court and enhance the amount---Validity---List of articles revealed that those were ordinarily given to a bride at the time of her marriage---No illegality or irregularity had been pointed out in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two courts below and upheld by the High Court assigning cogent and sound reasons calling for interference by Supreme Court---Impugned order did not suffer from any legal discrepancy nor any substantial question of public importance was involved in the petition against such order---Leave to appeal was declined by the Supreme Court.
Javed Bashir, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Muzammal Akhtar Shabbir, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.1.
Date of hearing: 16th July, 2008.
MUHAMMAD HABIB VS Mst. SAFIA BIBI2008 SCMR 1584[Supreme Court of Pakistan]Present: Ijaz-ul-Hassan Khan and Syed Sakhi Hussain Bokhari, JJMUHAMMAD HABIB----PetitionerVersusMst. SAFIA BIBI and others----RespondentsCivil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.1480-L of 2007, decided on 16/07/2008.(On appeal from the order, dated 6-8-2007 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Writ Petition No.7387 of 2007).
JUDGMENT
IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.--- Through instant petition, Muhammad Habib, petitioner, seeks leave against the order, dated 6-8-2007 of learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby petitioner's Writ Petition. No.7387 of 2007 was dismissed and judgment and decree dated 13-6-2007 rendered by learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, was maintained.
2. The facts which we have been able to gather from the record of the case are that petitioner married Mst. Safia Bibi, respondent, on 13-6-1993. Unfortunately after a few days of the marriage, relations between the couple became strained and the marital tie ended in a divorce. The respondent filed a suit for recovery of dowry articles valuing Rs.200,500 which was contested by the petitioner. After framing necessary issues and considering the evidence on record, learned Judge Family Court, Gujranwala, seized of the matter, vide judgment and decree dated 25-7-2006 partially allowed suit to the extent of Rs.80,000. Feeling aggrieved, both the parties, filed appeals. Vide consolidated judgment dated 13-6-2007, learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, dismissed appeal of the petitioner and accepted appeal of the respondent with modification in the decretal amount. The petitioner challenged said judgment and decree by filing writ petition before learned Lahore High Court, Lahore, which has been dismissed vide order impugned herein.
3. Mr. Javed Bashir, Advocate, representing the petitioner, after taking us through the evidence recorded during the trial, contended with vehemence that no such list of dowry articles was prepared at the time of marriage, same were fabricated subsequently and in absence of valid receipts of purchase of said articles, suit could not have been decreed. He also contended that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, learned appellate Court was not legally justified to modify the decree passed by learned Family court and enhance the amount. He reiterated that learned Single Judge of the High Court, while dismissing the writ petition has also not appreciated the evidence in true perspective, resulting in complete failure of justice.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the material on file, we find that learned High Court has rightly observed that "the evidence of the petitioner is insufficient to rebut the version of the plaintiff/respondent, Mst. Safia Bibi,....The learned appellate Court after proper appreciation of the evidence on record modified the decree of learned Judge Family Court and accepted the appeal of the plaintiff/ respondent regarding her whole claim of Rs.1,80,7000. The perusal of list Exh.P.1 reveals that these are the articles which are ordinarily given to a bride at the time of her marriage. Both the Courts below have given concurrent findings which are based upon substantial evidence and the petitioner has not been able to controvert the same during the trial, as such the petitioner has failed to show any illegality of irregularity committed by the Courts below in the impugned judgments so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction".
5. Having examined the impugned order in the above perspective, we find that no illegality or irregularity has been pointed out in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below and upheld by learned High Court assigning cogent and sound reasoning calling for interference by this Court. We are persuaded to hold that impugned order does not suffer from any legal discrepancy nor any substantial question of public importance is involved in this petition, therefore, no case for grant of leave is made out.
6. The petition, having been found devoid of force, is dismissed and leave refused accordingly.
M.B.A./M-55/SC??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.
x
رسيدات کے بغیر ہی سامان جہیز کی واپسی کا مقدمہ ڈگری ہو سکتا ہے ۔ صرف سامان جہیزکی لسٹ کافی ہے ۔
2008 SCMR 1584
West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)---
----S. 5 & Schd.---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Suit for recovery of dowry articles by divorced wife was decreed by Family Court and amount of decree was modified and enhanced by the Appellate Court---Contention of the husband was that no such list of dowry articles was prepared at the time of marriage, same was fabricated subsequently and in absence of valid receipts of purchase of said articles, suit could not have been decreed and that Appellate Court was not legally justified to modify the decree passed by Family Court and enhance the amount---Validity---List of articles revealed that those were ordinarily given to a bride at the time of her marriage---No illegality or irregularity had been pointed out in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two courts below and upheld by the High Court assigning cogent and sound reasons calling for interference by Supreme Court---Impugned order did not suffer from any legal discrepancy nor any substantial question of public importance was involved in the petition against such order---Leave to appeal was declined by the Supreme Court.
Javed Bashir, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Muzammal Akhtar Shabbir, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.1.
Date of hearing: 16th July, 2008.
JUDGMENT
IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.--- Through instant petition, Muhammad Habib, petitioner, seeks leave against the order, dated 6-8-2007 of learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby petitioner's Writ Petition. No.7387 of 2007 was dismissed and judgment and decree dated 13-6-2007 rendered by learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, was maintained.
2. The facts which we have been able to gather from the record of the case are that petitioner married Mst. Safia Bibi, respondent, on 13-6-1993. Unfortunately after a few days of the marriage, relations between the couple became strained and the marital tie ended in a divorce. The respondent filed a suit for recovery of dowry articles valuing Rs.200,500 which was contested by the petitioner. After framing necessary issues and considering the evidence on record, learned Judge Family Court, Gujranwala, seized of the matter, vide judgment and decree dated 25-7-2006 partially allowed suit to the extent of Rs.80,000. Feeling aggrieved, both the parties, filed appeals. Vide consolidated judgment dated 13-6-2007, learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, dismissed appeal of the petitioner and accepted appeal of the respondent with modification in the decretal amount. The petitioner challenged said judgment and decree by filing writ petition before learned Lahore High Court, Lahore, which has been dismissed vide order impugned herein.
3. Mr. Javed Bashir, Advocate, representing the petitioner, after taking us through the evidence recorded during the trial, contended with vehemence that no such list of dowry articles was prepared at the time of marriage, same were fabricated subsequently and in absence of valid receipts of purchase of said articles, suit could not have been decreed. He also contended that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, learned appellate Court was not legally justified to modify the decree passed by learned Family court and enhance the amount. He reiterated that learned Single Judge of the High Court, while dismissing the writ petition has also not appreciated the evidence in true perspective, resulting in complete failure of justice.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the material on file, we find that learned High Court has rightly observed that "the evidence of the petitioner is insufficient to rebut the version of the plaintiff/respondent, Mst. Safia Bibi,....The learned appellate Court after proper appreciation of the evidence on record modified the decree of learned Judge Family Court and accepted the appeal of the plaintiff/ respondent regarding her whole claim of Rs.1,80,7000. The perusal of list Exh.P.1 reveals that these are the articles which are ordinarily given to a bride at the time of her marriage. Both the Courts below have given concurrent findings which are based upon substantial evidence and the petitioner has not been able to controvert the same during the trial, as such the petitioner has failed to show any illegality of irregularity committed by the Courts below in the impugned judgments so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction".
5. Having examined the impugned order in the above perspective, we find that no illegality or irregularity has been pointed out in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below and upheld by learned High Court assigning cogent and sound reasoning calling for interference by this Court. We are persuaded to hold that impugned order does not suffer from any legal discrepancy nor any substantial question of public importance is involved in this petition, therefore, no case for grant of leave is made out.
6. The petition, having been found devoid of force, is dismissed and leave refused accordingly.
M.B.A./M-55/SC??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.
0 comments:
Post a Comment