Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 (VIII of 1961)--
----Ss. 9 & 10--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--Suit for recovery of maintenance allowances, dower amount and delivery expenses--Consolidated judgment--No evidence regarding snatching of gold ornament by petitioner--Financial status of petitioner--Courts below keeping in view needs of minors and Respondent No. 3 as well as financial status of petitioner while appreciating evidence on record have rightly fixed maintenance allowance of Respondents No. 3 to 5--Findings recorded by Courts below on this score do not call for any interference which are upheld and maintained--Gold ornaments are considered to be in possession of women folk, being their personal gifts and property as well as dear to them and when there is no evidence on record showing that same were snatched by petitioner, findings recorded by appellate Court on this point are exceptional and do not call for any interference at this stage--There appears no legal infirmity or error in impugned judgments and decrees warranting interference by High Court in exercise of extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction--Petition dismissed. [P. 248] A, B & C
Mr. Azam Jan Muhammad, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Adeel Khawar Nahra, Advocate Vice Counsel for Respondents No. 3 to 5.
Date of hearing: 9.2.2021.
PLJ 2022 Lahore 246
Present: Shahid Bilal Hassan, J.
Rana MUHAMMAD SALEEM--Petitioner
versus
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others--Respondents
W.P. No. 25033 of 2014, decided on 9.2.2021.
Order
This single order will dispose of the captioned petition as well as connected W.P. No. 25670 of 2014, as in both one and the same judgments and decrees have been impugned.
2. Precisely, the Respondents No. 3 to 5 instituted a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance, dower amount, 3 tolas golden ornaments and delivery expenses of Respondent No. 5 against the present petitioner Rana Muhammad Saleem, which was duly contested by him while submitting written statement. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed issues and evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 22.01.2014 in the following terms:
'------- Plaintiff No. 1 is entitled to receive maintenance allowance @ Rs. 1500/- per month from the date of her expulsion i.e. 10.04.2011 till the existence of marriage and plaintiffs No. 2, 3 are entitled to receive maintenance allowance @ Rs. 2000/- each per month from the date of their birth till the age of majority of Plaintiff No. 2 and till the marriage of Plaintiff No. 3 with 10% annual increment. Further Plaintiff No. 1 is entitled to receive Rs. 20,000/- and three tola gold ornaments as dower amount or its alternative current value. Further Plaintiff No. 1 is entitled to receive Rs. 20,000/- as delivery expenses from the defendant.'
Both the parties being aggrieved of the said judgment and decree preferred separate appeals. The learned appellate Court vide impugned consolidated judgment and decree dated 02.07.2014 partly allowed appeal preferred by the petitioner and set aside the judgment of learned trial Court to the extent of dower and dismissed claim of the Respondent No. 3 with regards to dower; hence, the instant constitutional petition as well as connected W.P. No. 25670 of 2014.
3. Heard.
4. In the instant constitutional petition, the petitioner has only called into question the impugned judgments and decrees to the extent
of quantum of maintenance allowance; however, it is observed that the learned Courts below keeping in view the needs of the minors and Respondent No. 3 as well as financial status of the petitioner while appreciating evidence on record have rightly fixed the maintenance allowance of the Respondents No. 3 to 5. The findings recorded by the learned Courts below on this score do not call for any interference which are upheld and maintained.
5. So far the claim of the dower of Respondent No. 3 is concerned, the learned appellate Court considering the contents of
the Nikahnama has rightly observed that the dower was fixed as
Rs. 20,000/- and in lieu thereof 3 tolas gold ornaments were given to the Respondent No. 3 by the petitioner. The gold ornaments are considered to be in possession of the women folk, being their personal gifts and property as well as dear to them and when there is no evidence on record showing that the same were snatched by the petitioner, the findings recorded by the learned appellate Court on this point are exceptional and do not call for any interference at this stage.
6. In view of the above, there appears no legal infirmity or error in the impugned judgments and decrees warranting interference by this Court in exercise of extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction. Resultantly, the petition in hand as well as connected W.P.No. 25670 of 2014 being without any force and substance stand dismissed with no order as to the costs.
(Y.A.) Petition dismissed
0 comments:
Post a Comment