Dower becomes payable on dissolution of marriage either by death or divorce

10. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that respondent No. 3 was not entitled to recover the alleged amount of deferred dower Rs. 2,00,000/- during the subsistence of marriage as deferred dower becomes payable on dissolution of marriage either by death or divorce and both the lower courts have committed illegality while granting the said relief in favour of respondent No. 3. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as “Saadia Usman and another Vs. Muhammad Usman Iqbal Jadoon and another” (2009 SCMR 1458), to contend that deferred dower becomes payable on dissolution of marriage either by death or divorce.  

Part of Judgment : 
LAHORE HIGH COURT MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN 
WP- Family Law
11586-13
2015 LHC 3917

Ornaments were recorded in the Nikah Nama later on, whereas, no dower was fixed at the time of Nikah; that the suit

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as the marriage of respondent No. 3 with the petitioner was intact at the time of filing of suit and passing of decree, therefore, the respondent No. 3 was not entitled to recover the alleged deferred dower from the petitioner. In this respect he has placed reliance upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as “Saadia Usman and another Vs. Muhammad Usman Iqbal Jadoon and another” (2009 SCMR 1458). He further contended that the entries regarding the dower amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and 5-tolas gold ornaments were recorded in the Nikah Nama later on, whereas, no dower was fixed at the time of Nikah; that the suit of respondent No. 3 to the extent of recovery of 5-tolas gold ornaments mentioned in column No. 17 of the Nikah Nama was not competent before the learned Judge Family Court, Mian Channu. To substantiate his contention he has placed reliance upon “Muhammad Awais Vs. Mst. Zahida Parveen” (PLD 2012 Lahore 38); that respondent No. 3 left his house at her own and she was not entitled to recover any maintenance allowance; that the learned lower courts have fixed maintenance allowance of respondent No. 3 at very excessive rate against the law and facts of the case. 

Part of Judgment : 
LAHORE HIGH COURT MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN 
WP- Family Law
11586-13
2015 LHC 3917

The provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 as well as Qanun-eShahadat Order, 1984 are not applicable in stricto senso to the proceedings before the Family Court by virtue of Section 17 of the Family Courts Act, 1964.

14. It is a settled principle of law that purpose of enacting the special law regarding family disputes is to advance justice and to avoid technicalities, which are hindrance in providing ultimate justice to the parties. The West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 was promulgated for the expeditious settlement and disposal of disputes relating to the marriages and  other family affairs and special procedure was provided to achieve this object. The purpose of enacting Family Courts Act, 1964 is to frustrate the technicalities for the purpose of justice between parties in shortest possible time. The provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 as well as Qanun-eShahadat Order, 1984 are not applicable in stricto senso to the proceedings before the Family Court by virtue of Section 17 of the Family Courts Act, 1964. Family Court has to regulate its own proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1964 as the evidence adduced before the Family Court cannot be evaluated and appraised in the manner as it is appreciated in the cases presented under Civil Procedure Code, 1908. A mere fact that a party did not finally prove the receipts of dowry articles in evidence have no legal consequence. Reliance is placed on case law reported as “Mst. Shakeela Bibi Vs. Muhammad Israr and others”(2012 MLD 756). 

Part of Judgment : 
THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, BAHAWALPUR BENCH BAHAWALPUR
WP- Family Law
2673-14
2014 LHC 7190

Recover the dower amount Rs. 2,00,000/- which was not paid to her by the petitioner; that the learned Family Court was competent to adjudicate upon the claim

7. On the other side, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 argued that respondent No. 3 was subjected to torture and she was turned out by the petitioner from his house and the learned trial Court has rightly granted her maintenance allowance; that respondent No. 3 was fully entitled to recover the dower amount Rs. 2,00,000/- which was not paid to her by the petitioner; that the learned Family Court was competent to adjudicate upon the claim of respondent No. 3 regarding 5-tolas gold ornaments; that the learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate court have passed the judgments and decrees in favour of respondent No. 3 in accordance with law and the writ petition against concurrent findings of both the learned courts below is not competent. He has placed reliance on “Liaquat Ali Vs. Additional District Judge, Narowal and 2 others” (1997 SCMR 1122), “Mst. Razia Begum Vs. Jang Baz and 3 others” (2012 CLC 105), and “Mst. Ghulam Shaheena Vs. Judge, Family Court” (2010 CLC 87).  

Part of Judgment : 
LAHORE HIGH COURT MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN 
WP- Family Law
11586-13
2015 LHC 3917

Column No. 17 of Nikah Nama as it falls out of ambit of Section 5 and Schedule of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964.

14. In the present case as per record 5-tolas gold ornaments are mentioned in column No. 17 of the Nikah Nama (Ex. PI) and in column No. 16 of the Nikah Nama it is clearly mentioned that no property was given in lieu of dower. Therefore, the alleged claim of respondent No. 3 that 5-tolas gold ornaments were mentioned in the Nikah Nama as consideration for dower remains unproved. It has been clearly held in the above referred precedent case that the learned Family Court has no jurisdiction to decide the claim of wife regarding any amount or property mentioned in column No. 17 of Nikah Nama as it falls out of ambit of Section 5 and Schedule of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964. Therefore, in these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate court have not considered this aspect of the matter and the suit of respondent No. 3 for the claim of 5-tolas gold ornaments has been illegally decreed by the learned courts below. The judgments referred by learned counsel for respondent No. 3 reported as (1) “Mst. Razia Begum Vs. Jang Baz and 3 others” ( 2012 CLC 105), “Mst. Ghulam Shaheena Vs. Judge, Family Court” (2010 CLC 87), and “Liaquat Ali Vs. Additional District Judge, Narowal and 2 others (1997 SCMR 1122), are not applicable in this case as in the referred cases the property was given to the wife as dower, whereas, in the present case 5-tolas gold ornaments are mentioned in column No. 17 of the Nikah Nama and the same were not given to respondent No. 3 in lieu of dower. Hence, findings of learned trial Court as well as learned appellate court for passing the decrees regarding 5-tolas in favour of respondent No. 3 are not sustainable under the law. Resultantly, I reversed the findings of both the courts below on issue No. 1 and decide the same against respondent No. 3.  

Part of Judgment : 
LAHORE HIGH COURT MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN 
WP- Family Law
11586-13
2015 LHC 3917

Specifically stipulated in clause 20 of the Nikahnama.

After solemnization of Nikah respondent became legally wedded wife of the petitioner, therefore, he was bound to maintain her irrespective of the fact that marriage was consummated or not and particularly when a specific stipulation was made in the Nikahnama. Reliance is placed on case reported as Mst. Shamim Akhtar ..Vs.. Additional District Judge, Sialkot and another (1991 CLC 1142) wherein it has been laid down as under:-

 “There is no dispute between the parties that the Nikah was solemnized on 16 th June, 1985 at which time it was agreed that the respondent shall pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.300 per month, to his wife. It is so specifically stipulated in clause 20 of the Nikahnama. This stipulation was not made dependent upon the performance of Rukhsati nor was any such condition attached. In the written statement filed by respondent No.2, there was no averment that despite demand made by him, the wife had refused to perform her marital obligations or to live with him. That being so, the Additional District Judge was clearly in error in setting aside the decree  by holding that as Rukhsati had not taken place, the petitioner was not entitled to any maintenance.” 

Both the learned courts below were thus fully justified in holding that the petitioner was bound to pay maintenance allowance to respondent No.1 during subsistence of Nikah and no exception can be taken therefrom.  

Part of Judgment : 
THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE
WP- Family Law
30974-14
2015 LHC 8948

Under section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance and it required notice and did not become effective till 90 days expired after such notice

7. It is argued by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 that oral Talak is not effective as no notice was given by him and the concerned Union Council has not issued a certificate of effectiveness of Talak. This argument is fully answered by august Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case reported as “Ghulam Shabir Shah v. The State” (1983 SCMR 942) held as under:- 

“We notice that the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken it as a ground for the first time that the divorce pronounced orally in October 1979 or in writing in January, 1980 was such as to fall outside the provisions of sections 7 and 8 of the Family Laws Ordinance. Not even the divorce document has been placed on record to make out this ground. What we find is that the two courts dealing with the question have recorded a finding that the divorce was pronounced by the petitioner on 17 th of January, 1980, that it was a divorce as envisaged under section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance and it required notice and did not become effective till 90 days expired after such notice. Reading sections 7 and 8 together we find no such distinction as is sought to be made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner.”  

Part of Judgment : 
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE
RAWALPINDI BENCH, RAWALPINDI
WP- Family Law
3045-14
2015 LHC 5006
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Powered by Blogger.

Case Law Search