Article 103 speaks about the time period of three years by a muslim for exigible dower (mu’ajjal) “when the dower is demanded and refused or where, during the continuance of the marriage no such demand has been made when the marriage is dissolved by death or divorce.”

 2023 SCMR 1072

Article 103 speaks about the time period of three years by a muslim for exigible dower (mu’ajjal) “when the dower is demanded and refused or where, during the continuance of the marriage no such demand has been made when the marriage is dissolved by death or divorce.” Whereas Article 104 speaks about the time period of three years by a muslim for deferred dower (mu’wajjal) “when the marriage is dissolved by death or divorce.” Admittedly, the property was in the exclusive possession of the respondent and the tenants were also paying Ijjara to her. The respondent never said that she did not receive the dower rather it was her claim that she is enjoying the proceeds/fruit of the land. Therefore, the matter in-fact related to wrong entries in the revenue record and the same in no way can be termed as a matter relating to dower. The learned High Court by placing reliance on the judgment of this Court reported as Abdul Sattar Khan Vs. Rafiq Khan (2000 SCMR 1574) and Articles 120 and 144 of the Qanun-e-Shahdat Order, 1984 has rightly held that the period of six years is to be counted from the date when the right to sue accrued. In these circumstances, neither the suit of the respondent can be termed as barred by time nor she had to approach the learned Family Court for redressal of her grievances. The learned High Court has rightly held that respondent was a Parda Nashin Lady and under no circumstances it can be presumed that she had the knowledge that after the Nikah and the Nikah Nama, the registration as well as the incorporation in the revenue record was mandatory. Under the bona fide belief, in our part of the world, the presumption of completeness of transaction, after the execution of Nikah Nama is there and since the Ijjara was being received by her, as such, she was under bona fide belief that during the lifetime of Noor Muhammad as well as after his death, the transaction is complete and she is the owner of the property in question.”