-Art. 199--Entries in Column No. 16 of nikahnama--Amount of dower was mentioned in column No. 11--Misreading of column No. 16 by Courts below--Interpretation of document--Concurrent findings-

 PLJ 2023 Lahore (Note) 35

Constitution of Pakistan, 1973--

----Art. 199--Entries in Column No. 16 of nikahnama--Amount of dower was mentioned in column No. 11--Misreading of column No. 16 by Courts below--Interpretation of document--Concurrent findings--Exercising of jurisdiction by Family Courts--Challenge to--Courts below have misread and misconstrued terms of column No. 16 which is closely tied in Column No. 11 and cannot be read in isolation--It is a basic rule of interpretation of documents that a document has to be read as a whole--Intention of parties can be whittled down on a reading of different parts of Nikahnama in isolation--Family Court can only exercise jurisdiction in respect of inter alia recovery of dower but not otherwise--If at all any recovery is sought in respect of assets mentioned in column No. 16, Respondent No. 3 ought to have brought a suit separately but not by way of recovery of dower before family Court--Petition allowed. 

                                                                                  [Para 4] A, B & C

Mr. Rafiq Ahmad Malik, Advocate for Petitioner.

Ex-parte for Respondents No. 3 & 4.

Date of hearing: 26.3.2019.

 PLJ 2023 Lahore (Note) 35
Present: Shahid karim, J.
ZAKIR ABBAS--Petitioner
versus
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAYYAH etc.--Respondents
W.P. No. 13317 of 2018, decided on 26.3.2019.

Order

The Respondents No. 3 and 4 have been proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 5.12.2018.

2. The only issue in this petition revolves around Issue No. 3 which is to the following effect:

“Whether the plaintiff No. 1 is entitled to “Haq Mehr” as well detailed in head note of the plaint? OPP.”

3. Both the Courts below have rendered a concurrent finding of fact vide judgments and decrees dated 10.07.2018 and 7.1.2017 passed by the Addl District Judge, Layyah and Judge Family Court, Layyah respectively. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was a gross misreading of evidence on the said issue, in that. column No. 16 of the Nikahnama was misconstrued by the Courts below. It is pertinent to mention that in column No. 11 the amount of dower has been mention as Rs.2,000/- whereas in column No. 16 piece of land measuring 1-kanal, Haveli or 9 Masha ornaments have been mentioned. The said column in vernacular reads as under:

"آیا پورے مہر یا اس کے کسی حصہ کے عوض میں کوئی جائیداد دی گئی ہے اگر دی گئی ہے تو اس جائیداد کی حرامت اور اس کی قیمت جو فریقین کے مابین طے پائی ہے۔"

4. Therefore, it is evident that the said column has to be read in conjunction with Column No. 11 relating to the amount of dower and provides that the column must contain details of property if any which has been given in lieu of the dower or any part of the dower. It is incredulous to suggest that although the amount of dower is
Rs. 2,000/- as clearly stated in column No. 11 that the property and other assets mentioned in column No. 16 would be in substitution of that amount of Rs.2000/- or any part of it. Clearly, therefore, the Courts below have misread and misconstrued the terms of the column No. 16 which is closely tied in Column No. 11 and cannot be read in isolation. It is a basic rule of interpretation of documents that a document has to be read as a whole. It cannot be urged by any stretch of imagination that the intention of the parties can be whittled down on a reading of different parts of the Nikahnama in isolation. Surely it cannot be the case of the Respondent No. 3 that the value of the assets mentioned in column No. 16 equals Rs.2000/-. If that is not the case, then the property mentioned in this column has to be a transaction unrelated to dower. Although the petitioner admits to the authenticity of the Nikahnama yet the assertion is that the mention of piece of land etc. may be intended by the parties to be a separate arrangement between the parties but was not the amount of dower which could be claimed by filing a suit before the family Court. Plainly the family Court can only exercise jurisdiction in respect of inter alia recovery of dower but not otherwise. If at all any recovery is sought in respect of the assets mentioned in column No. 16, the Respondent No. 3 ought to have brought a suit separately but not by way of recovery of dower before the family Court. Thus, the Courts below have committed a jurisdictional defect and gross illegality in the construction that these Courts put on column No. 16 so as to read that column along with Column No. 11 and to decree the suit for dower.

5.  In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The judgments and decrees of the Courts below to the extent of Issue No. 3 is hereby set aside.

(Y.A.)  Petition allowed