At the time of Nikah, the husband agreed to give 8-tolas gold ornaments to the wife and a stipulation was imposed on the right of divorce of the present petitioner that if he divorces the respondent, he will pay Rs.500,000/- in lieu thereof.
All the witnesses have corroborated the stance of the respondent with regards to the entries made in the Nikahnama germane to gold ornaments and stipulation as well as restriction on right of divorce by the petitioner, which have been mentioned in columns No.17 and 19 of the Nikahnama. The petitioner could not lead evidence as to obtaining of his thumb impression on the Nikahnama by force and under undue influence by the respondent and even the same does not appeal to prudent mind. The Nikahnama is per se admissible in evidence and entries of the same have not been challenged by the petitioner before any forum at the relevant time. Even otherwise, the entries of the Nikahnama have been proved by the respondent by producing oral as well as documentary evidence. As against this, the petitioner could not lead evidence in rebuttal as his right to produce evidence was closed by the learned trial Court and he remained unsuccessful in getting the said order reversed by the higher Courts despite availing of the remedy provided under law. Meaning thereby the evidence of the respondent on this point is unrebutted and even during cross examination, conducted on the P.Ws. the petitioner’s side could not shake the veracity of the testimonies of the P.Ws. rather the witnesses remained firm and unscathed. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the respondent has rightly been held entitled to recover 8-tolas gold ornaments from the petitioner as agreed by him at the time of Nikah with the respondent, by the learned Courts below. As such, the findings of the learned Courts below to this extent are upheld and maintained.
PLJ 2024 Lahore 165
2024 CLC 2129
