Registration of dower deed:

If the respondent No.1/ wife has proved the execution of the document through production of two marginal witnesses as per the provision of Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 then the objection of the learned counsel for the petitioners that it was an unregistered deed is of no significance. Rel.‘Inayat Ullah Vs. Mst. Pareveen Akhtar” (1989 SCMR 1871), “Mst. Rehmat Bibi Vs. Haji Allah Dewaya and 02 others” (2009 CLC 290), Masal Khan vs. Mst. Shah Tarina and another (2012 CLC 206), Fazal Ur Rehman vs. Sosan Jan and other (1989 SCMR 651)/.

Payment of deferred dower during subsistence of marriage to wife.

It was also one of the objections of learned counsel for the petitioners that since the marriage between the parties is still intact, as such, the respondent/ wife could not be held entitled for recovery of the deferred dower during subsistence of the marriage. Recently the apex Court in the case of ‘Khalid Pervaiz Vs. Samina and others” (2024 SCMR 142), while dismissing the appeal of the husband, has observed to levy a substantial compensatory cost upon him for indulging the wife into unnecessary and fruitless litigation and that too in a family matter up- to the apex Court but was not imposed only for the reason that he was ready to deposit the dower before the learned Family Court within a period of one month. Reliance is also placed on the cases of ‘Qasim Raza Vs. Additional District Judge Mailsi District Vehari and 02 others” (2018 CLC Note. 2) and “Muhammad Shabbir Vs. Rehan Kauar and others” (PLD 2013 Lahore 102) wherein it was held that “According to injunctions of Islam, there is no split on the dower, whether deferred or prompt, dower was obligatory on husband, which was the entitlement of the wife as consideration of marriage”. Thus, the objection of the learned counsel for the petitioners is not in accordance with law, in the circumstances.>br> Enhancement of maintenance allowance for wife and minor by appellate Court without filing any appeal:

Next, it was the objection of learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned appellate court has enhanced the maintenance allowance of the respondents/ plaintiffs without their appeal, thus, has committed an illegality. It appears that the learned trial Court has granted only Rs.2000/- per month for each of the respondents/ plaintiffs. Admittedly, the respondent No.1 is wife of the petitioner No.1 while respondent No.2 is son, who is school going and thus the learned appellate Court, while considering Rs.2,000/- per month as insufficient amount to meet the daily expenses of the respondents in view of escalation of prices of the commodities, devaluation of currency and inflation globally in juxtaposition with the sound financial possession of the petitioner No.1 (husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent No.2), has rightly enhanced the maintenance allowance of each of the respondents to Rs.5000/- per month, with 20% annual increase. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant matter and evidence on the record, it was a right approach of the learned appellate Court rather has arrived at a just decision on the issue of the maintenance of the respondents.