--Family Court while deciding issue No. 1 ordered petitioner to pay Rs. 2000/- per month as previous maintenance from 24.05.2007 simply on ground that petitioner was a low class salaried person-

 PLJ 2021 Lahore 237

Constitution of Pakistan, 1973--

----Art. 199--Suit for recovery of dowry articles, dower amount and maintenance allowance--Decreed--Appeal--Dismissed--Concurrent findings--After thought agreement--Consolidated judgments--Challenge to--Family Court while deciding issue No. 1 ordered petitioner to pay Rs. 2000/- per month as previous maintenance from 24.05.2007 simply on ground that petitioner was a low class salaried person--It was further observed under issue No. 2 that since 24.05.2007 both spouses had no interaction and gold ornaments were kept in possession by woman, therefore, were refused--Court however granted 50% of claimed dowry articles and determined it at Rs. 1,70,390/---Interestingly, on 21.01.2009 suit for restitution of conjugal rights was decreed subject to fulfilment of condition of column No. 13 and 16 of nikahnama petitioner had not fulfilled--Besides, petitioner has introduced an afterthought agreement to suggest that these conditions have been waived of, therefore, it was not appreciated--Importantly, it had attained finality--Consolidated judgments and decrees interpreted that said clauses of nikahnama do not appear to be illegal or irrational--Petition was dismissed. [Pp. 238 & 239] A & B

PLD 2011 SC 221 ref.

Malik Matee Ullah, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. Muhammad Aslam Chaudhary, Advocate for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 22.10.2020.

 PLJ 2021 Lahore 237

Present: Ali Baqar Najafi, J.

MUHAMMAD MASOOD-UL-HAQ--Petitioner

versus

JUDGE FAMILY COURT etc.--Respondents.

W.P. No. 16084 of 2014, decided on 22.10.2020.

Order

Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgments and decrees dated 15.05.2010 as well as 06.01.2011 whereby the suit for recovery of dowry articles, dower amount and a house as well as for the grant of maintenance allowance was concurrently decreed by the learned Judge Family Court and the appellate Court.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of this constitutional petition are that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place on 19.12.2005 and the respondent claimed to have brought dowry articles worth Rs. 7,02,700/- into the house of the petitioner. The dower amount of Rs. 1 lac and a house was agreed in the nikahnama. However, soon their relationship got strained. Meanwhile, signatures of the respondent were procured on the blank papers by the petitioner. The respondent went to see her ailing mother with two clothes about 02 years 05 months before the institution of the suit and instead of settling the matter with the petitioner, the respondent contracted second marriage. The suit for recovery of past and future maintenance, dowry articles, dower as well as house and Rs. 30,000/- cash was contested by the petitioner claiming that the respondent had already waived of her right of the dower amount and house vide agreement dated 11.02.2006. A civil suit for declaration was also filed and that a suit for restitution of conjugal rights was filed and had tried his level best to bring her back. The suits were consolidated and issues framed and the evidence was recorded. The suits were decided and appeals dismissed hence this writ petition.

3. Arguments heard. Record perused.

Description: A4. The learned family Court while deciding issue No. 1 ordered the petitioner to pay Rs. 2000/- per month as previous maintenance from 24.05.2007 simply on the ground that petitioner was a low class salaried person. It was further observed under issue No. 2 that since

24.05.2007 both spouses had no interaction and the gold ornaments were kept in possession by the woman, therefore, were refused. The Court however granted 50% of the claimed dowry articles and determined it at Rs. 1,70,390/-. Interestingly, on 21.01.2009 the suit for restitution of conjugal rights was decreed subject to fulfilment of condition of column No. 13 and 16 of nikahnama the petitioner had not fulfilled. Besides, the petitioner has introduced an afterthought agreement dated 11.02.2006 to suggest that these conditions have been waived of, therefore, it was not appreciated. Importantly, it had attained finality.

Description: B5. The consolidated judgments and decrees interpreted that the said clauses of nikahnama do not appear to be illegal or irrational. Reliance can be placed upon case titled “Dr. Asma Ali vs. Masood Sajjad and others” reported as PLD 2011 SC 221. Para 4 of which is relevant and is reproduced as follows:

“4. That once we decide that if the property/house mentioned in the Nikahnama on account of lack of sufficient description leading to its identification then its price, if mentioned in the Nikahnama, can be awarded then in the same way the value of the other property (agricultural), the price of which has not been mentioned in the documentation/Nikahnama, can also be granted if the evolvement of a mechanism for determination of value is possible, which is not in conflict with any provision of law rather in consonance with the established principles for determining the value of property, then the same be resorted to.”

6. In this view of the matter, this writ petition has been found meritless and, is therefore dismissed.

(Y.A.) Petition dismissed