--Ss. 9 & 10--Suit for maintenance and recovery of dower--Partially decreed--Claim of dower land was satisfied--

 PLJ 2022 Lahore (Note) 9

Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 (VIII of 1961)--

----Ss. 9 & 10--Suit for maintenance and recovery of dower--Partially decreed--Claim of dower land was satisfied--No specification in nikahnama regarding plot as part of dower--Challenge to--Perusal of Nikahnama (Exh.P-3) reveals that against its column No. 15, both, petitioner and his father Respondent No. 4 were made bound to deliver land measuring 02-Beghas to Respondent No. 3--Respondent No. 4 not only participated in marriage ceremony of his son, but also put his signature on Exh.P-3, which amounts to suggest that all terms and conditions were settled in his presence--Exh.P-4 do reveal that present petitioner got transferred land measuring 08-Kanals in favour of his wife three days prior to Rukhsati--Judge Family Court has rightly held that claim of plaintiff regarding dower land was satisfied,  she cannot claim land--Measurement of which plot is mentioned as 3½-Marlas, whereas claimed plot by plaintiff was having measurement of 7½-Marlas--No specification in column No. 16 of Exh.P-3 is made to effect that same is to be treated as a part of dower--Courts below have rightly appreciated evidence available on record in its true perspective--Petition dismissed.     [Para 4, 5 & 6] A, B, C & D

2011 CLC 726 ref.

Mr. Muhammad Irfan Aarbi, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. Muhammad Asif Ali Khan, Advocate for Respondent
No. 3.

Date of hearing: 23.4.2018.

 PLJ 2022 Lahore (Note) 9
[Multan Bench, Multan]
Present: Ibad-ur-Rehman Lodhi, J.
MOHSIN AMIN--Petitioner
versus
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ALIPUR DISTT. MUZAFFARGARH and others--Respondents
W.P. No. 14049 of 2015, decided on 23.4.2018.

Order

The suit filed by Mst. Zakia Bibi-Respondent No. 3 for recovery of dower and maintenance was decreed by the learned Judge Family Court on 07.05.2014 and she was held entitled to receive maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5000/-per month from the present petitioner since institution of suit till payment of dower or subsistence of her marriage. Similarly, her claim to the extent of gold ornaments weighing 05 Tolas and possession of dower land as dower was also decreed, whereas her suit to the extent of remaining claim of dower was dismissed.

Feeling aggrieved, the present petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned first appellate Court and the findings arrived at by the learned Judge Family Court were affirmed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 15.06.2015.

2. The stance of plaintiff/Respondent No. 3 is that her marriage with present petitioner took place against dower of Rs. 2000/-gold ornaments weighing 05-Tolas, land measuring 02-Beghas and plot measuring 7½-Marlas, which was not paid. She also sought possession of land measuring 08-Kanals, which was transferred in her name by the present petitioner by way of gift.

On the other hand, the stance of present petitioner/Defendant No. 1 in the suit is that he delivered gold ornaments and also got transferred the land as detailed in Nikahnama in favour of plaintiff before Rukhsati, whereas he categorically denied the condition regarding transfer of plot in her favour. Muhammad Ameen real father of present Petitioner-Defendant No. 2 in the suit has termed the transfer of land in favour of plaintiff by the present petitioner as a result of fraud.

3. Admittedly, marriage between present petitioner and Respondent No. 3 was not arranged one, rather it was a love marriage. It is also an admitted fact that Nikah of both the parties was performed on 28.02.2010, whereas Rukhsati of plaintiff was effected on 28.11.2010 i.e. after nine months of Nikah. It is also an admitted position that marriage in between the parties still subsists.

Mohsin Ameen-present petitioner, while appearing as DW-1, has admitted in his examination-in-chief that at the time of Nikah,
Rs. 2000/-, land measuring 02-Beghas and gold ornaments weighing 05-Tolas were fixed as dower of Respondent No. 3. He further admitted that against such conditions, his marriage with Respondent No. 3 was settled.

PW-1/plaintiff during cross-examination has candidly deposed that she was not paid gold ornaments as dower at the time of Rukhsati. While denying suggestion of getting divorce from the present petitioner, she categorically deposed that if the petitioner would pay maintenance and entire dower to her, she is ready to reside with him. It is an admitted fact that the present petitioner has miserably failed to produce any evidence showing delivery of gold ornaments to Respondent No. 3 before Rukhsati. In his written statement, he averred that he will produce photograph of Respondent No. 3 wearing such ornaments, but, even such photograph was not produced by him during process of recording evidence. He also failed to produce receipt of purchase of gold ornaments.

4. Perusal of Nikahnama (Exh.P-3) reveals that against its column No. 15, both, present petitioner and his father Muhammad Ameen-Respondent No. 4 were made bound to deliver land measuring 02-Beghas to Respondent No. 3. Admittedly, Respondent No. 4/father of present petitioner not only participated in marriage ceremony of his son, but also put his signature on Exh.P-3, which amounts to suggest that all terms and conditions were settled in his presence.

As discussed above, the present petitioner contracted love marriage with Respondent No. 3 and for fulfilling conditions of Nikahnama, Rukhsati of Respondent No. 3 with the present petitioner was effected after nine months of Nikah. Even otherwise, Exh.P-4 do reveal that the present petitioner got transferred land measuring 08-Kanals in favour of his wife three days prior to Rukhsati. The learned Judge Family Court has rightly held that the claim of plaintiff regarding dower land was satisfied vide Mutation No. 13015, therefore, she cannot claim land measuring 02-Beghas in Mouza Ghalwan.

In view of above facts and particularly in absence of any evidence, the stance taken by Respondent No. 4/father of present petitioner in his written statement regarding alleged fraud on the part of present petitioner in getting such property from him and subsequent transfer of such property in favour of his wife, is not tenable.

5. So far as the claim of plaintiff/Respondent No. 3 regarding transfer of plot No. 95 measuring 7½-Marlas situated in Gulshan Qadir Scheme, Multan in her favour is concerned, suffice to say that there is marked difference in such claim as is noted in Nikahnama (Exh.P-3), the measurement of which plot is mentioned as 3½-Marlas, whereas the claimed plot by the plaintiff was having the measurement of 7 ½-Marlas. Even otherwise, no specification in column No. 16 of Exh.P-3 is made to the effect that the same is to be treated as a part of dower. The learned Judge Family Court, while relying upon case titled “Syed Nadeem Raza through Attorney General versus Mst. Amna-Tuz-Zahra and 2 others” (2011 CLC 726) has rightly declined such request of the Plaintiff/Respondent No. 3.

6. The learned Courts below have rightly appreciated evidence available on record in its true perspective. No illegality or irregularity has been found in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below calling for interference by this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction.

7. Resultantly, the present Constitutional petition having no force, is dismissed.

(Y.A.)  Petition dismissed