DOWRY ARTICLES NLR 2000 SD 573. Mst. Farhad V/S Addl. Distt. Judge-II Mardan & 2 others (Peshawar DB). Dower: Dowery are those articles which are always given to wife by her parents at the time of rukhsati, whereas dower is right of wife which is always paid or to be paid in lieu of marriage by husband. Dower once paid the liability of dower dissatisfied. The taking away of dower after marriage may be considered a loan/credit the return of which could only be sought through Civil Court. PLD 2002 Peshawar 30. Mst. Samina Gul V/S Zainab Din Ss.5, Schedule Family Courts Act & 25-A CPC. Suit for return of marriage gifts. Transfer of such suit to NWFP from Civil/Family Court (Sindh). Schedule to West Pakistan Family Courts Act did not include marriage gifts to be the subject matter of dispute with reference to S.5 of the said Act. Suit at (Sindh) had to be a civil suit and in case it was so, the jurisdiction to transfer it under S.23(3) CPC would vest in Sindh High Court. 2004 MLD 696. Aftab Mohy-ud-Din V/S Additional District Judge (Lahore) S.19 Family Courts Act. Schedule II, Art/.17(vii). Courts Fees Act. Suit for recovery of dowry articles dismissed by the trial court. Court fee payable on the memorandum of appeal. Claim of plaintiff in a suit for recovery of dowry articles is not substitution of money, which is for the court to determine on the basis of evidence whether substitution of dowry articles will be justifiable in money or not. In all such cases where the valuation of suit is not determined for the purposes of court fee and for the jurisdictional purposes on the decree sheet the case will fall under the remedial and curative enactment of S.19 of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 and Art.17(vii), Schedule II of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and the stamp of Rs:15 will be affixed on the memo of appeal as is apparent from the intention of Legislature through West Pakistan Family Courts (Amendment) Ordinance, 2002 promulgated on 1-10-2002. NLR 2004 SD 576. Muhammad Saleem Akhtar V/S Judge Family Court etc. (Bahawalpur) Admissibility of list od dowry articles without its scribe cannot be questioned on ground of being violative of Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, as U/S 17 of Family Courts Act, 1964, provisions of Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, are not applicable to Family Court proceedings. (2) Violation of provisions of Dowry & Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Act, cannot be made basis for challenge to dowry decree passed by Family Court when this point was not taken in the pleadings nor any issue was framed for that proposition. NLR 2003 SD 347. Mst. Shahnaz Begum V/S Muhammad Shafi, etc. (Lahore) S.2,3. Articles of dowry, bridal gifts, presents and all other movable property are the belongings of wife. Wife, if deprived by her husband of bridal gifts, would have right to recover all these articles even though the same were given in violation of S.3 NLR 2004 SD 712. Ahmad Khan V/S Mst. Sarwar Khatoon etc. (Lahore) S.14 Family Courts Act, 1993 (AJK). Appeal by wife against dismissal of her suit for recovery of dowry articles by Family Court by rejecting the list of dowry articles furnished by wife. Appellate court would not be justified to remand the case to Family court on basis of same record. High Court accepting writ petition of husband against remand order of Appellate Court, setting it aside and directing the Appellate Court to decide the appeal of wife on basis of evidence on record. CASE REMANDED TO APPELLATE COURT. NLR 2004 SD 833. Aftab Mohy-ud-Din V/S Additional Distt. Judge etc. (Lahore) In suit for recovery of dowry articles, the court has to determine the value of articles of dowry at the time of presentation of plaint and their depreciate value during the long preceding years. NLR 2004 SD 1051. Muhammad Akram V/S Mst. Shahida Parveen etc. (Lahore) In a suit for restitution of specific dowry articles, ordinarily it is the option of the husband/defendant whether he would deliver the articles or pay the value thereof. Family court would be right in directing husband/defendant to make payment of the price of dowry articles when dowry articles had been mercilessly used, with the result that the same were either not available at all or those which were available were in a damaged condition. PLD 2004 Lahore 249. Muhammad Akram V/S Mst. Shahida Parveen Suit for recovery of dowry articles or in alternative price thereof. Defendant’s plea was that plaintiff was not given any dowry at the time of marriage. Suit was decreed as prayed for. Executing court through Local Commission found restitution of such articles impossible, thus, directed the recovery price thereof. Defendant’s plea was that such direction was without jurisdiction as decree did not find mention of money payable by him in the alternative. Validity. Words “as prayed for” were important, which had to be read in conjunction with prayer clause of the plaint, wherein while seeking decree for recovery of dowry articles, prayer in alternative for price thereof had been made. Local Commissioner’s report showed that most of such articles were either missing or destroyed or damaged, while some did not belong to the plaintiff. Defendant had produced some articles before the Local Commission offering delivery thereof but plaintiff had refused to accept same for not being articles under claim. Plea raised in written statement was that the defendant had no intention to part with any article of dowry belonging to plaintiff. Appointment of Local Commission was for satisfaction of defendant, though there was no need of the appointment after defendant having once denied to be in possession of any dowry articles. Executing court had, thus, rightly directed defendant to pay cost/value of dowry articles. (2) Decree for recovery of dowry articles or in alternative price thereof. Defendant had denied to be in possession of dowry articles. No need of appointing Local Commission in such situation. Duty of Executing Court to straightaway execute decree for money. PETITION DISMISSED. PLD 2004 Lahore 290. Mst. Shahnaz Begum V/S Muhammad Shafi & Others S.2(A) & 3 Dowry & Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Act 1976. Art.199 of Constitution. Dowry - Definition - Articles of dowry, bridal gifts, presents or all the other movable properties are the belongings of bridge and the husband if deprives her of the same, she has the right to recover all these articles even though the same were given in contradiction of provisions of S.3 of the Dowry & Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Act 1976. Bridge can always recover the articles of dowry and Wari given to her by the bridegroom or the bridegroom side at the time of marriage. Bridal gift given by the husband is the absolute property of the wife and it could not be snatched away from her. CASE REMANDED PLD 2004 Lahore 668.Faisal Afzal Sheikh V/S Additional District Judge Lahore. S.5 & Schedule of West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964. Suit for recovery of dowry articles. Decree for payment of money in lieu of dowry articles passed by Family Court was upheld by Appellate Court. Validity. Defendant had not challenged list of articles annexed with plaint. Value of articles as stated by witnesses of plaintiff had not been challenged by defendant in cross-examination - Defendant had not denied factum of car brought by plaintiff alongwith ornaments at the time of marriage. Plaintiff had alleged in plaint sale of car by defendant and misappropriation of its sale proceeds by him. Defendant had not produced evidence in rebuttal to show that plaintiff herself had sold car. In absence of such evidence, concurrent findings of fact of courts below could not be infered with in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court. Defendant had not prayed in constitutional petition for return of such articles. If defendant wanted to return such articles, there was nothing to prevent him. Courts below had taken note of every material evidence brought on record. PET.DISMISSED. 2006 SCMR 662.Zafar Iqbal V/S Mst. Tahira Parveen & Others (SC.FB) Suit for recovery of dowery articles of value thereof in alternative. Plea of wife was that motorcycle was purchased by her father through her brother which was given to her at the time of marriage and was sold by husband for Rs:50,000/-. Husbands plea was that his brother-in-law had offered motorcycle for sale to him, which he purchased being a dealer of motorcycle and subsequently sold to someone else. High Court in constitutional petition added price of motorcycle (Rs:50,000) to the amount of decree passed by Family Court. Validity. High Court had correctly added price of motorcycle in amount of decree after finding that motorcycle had been given to wife at the time of marriage as a dowry article, which had been sold by husband for Rs:50,000. No illegality or jurisdictional defect was found in impugned judgment. Controversy was merely factual in nature not involving any question of law. PETITION DISMISSED. 2006 SCMR 1136. Zulfiqar Ali V/S Musarrat Bibi & Others (SC.DB) Dowry articles, return of. Agreement not signed by wife. Husband claimed to have returned dowry articles to the wife and relied upon agreement signed by two brothers of the wife. Appellate court did not accept the agreement and directed the husband to return the articles. Judgment of Appellate Court was maintained by High Court. Validity. Wife was not a party to the agreement and the brothers had denied their signatures on the agreement. Husband could not show any authority given by the wife to her brothers to enter into the agreement with the husband. Judgment of High Court affirming the conclusion reached by the Appellate Court was not open to any exception. LEAVE TO APPEAL REFUSED. PLD 2006 Karachi 272. Abdul Sattar V/S Mst. Kalsoom Marriage, dissolution of - Khula, ground of.. Consideration for dissolution of marriage would be remission of dower amount by wife, if not received or its payment, if received-- All bridal gifts given to wife before or after marriage would not be returned to husband. 2007 MLD 379.Mst. Sharman Bibi V/S Abdul Majid & 2 Others (Lahore) S.5 & Schedule. S.14 W.Pak.Family Courts Act 1964. Suit for dissolution of marriage, recovery of maintenance allowance dowry articles. Family Court granted decree for dissolution of marriage in favour of petitioner, she was also declared entitled to recovery of Rs.500 per month as her maintenance allowance. Family Court further declared petitioner to recover Rs.200,000 from respondent as alternate of her used dowry articles along with admitted dowry articles. Judgment and decree passed by Family Court to the extent of Rs.200,000 as alternate of used dowry articles was held to be not maintainable by the appellate court and petitioner had been declared entitled to get back her dowry articles. Validity. Petitioner lived with respondent as her wife for more than five years and during that period she had been using her dowry articles; it would not be fair to order respondent to pay Rs:200,000 for use of dowry articles along with dowry articles. No evidence was available on record with regard to use of dowry articles and household articles which devalued with the passage of time. Well-reason order passed by Appellate Court below, did not call for any interference. PLD 2007 Quetta 38. S. W.Pak. Family Courts Act 1964 & Schedule. Article 120 of LimitationAct. Respondent within three years of death of her husband filed suit in Family Court for recovery of dory articles. Petitioner, father of deceased husband of respondent filed application seeking dismissal/rejection of suit filed by respondent being barred by time and for want of jurisdiction. Said application was dismissed and suit filed by respondent having been decreed by the Family Court, petitioner had filed constitutional petition against judgment of Family Court-----Validity------Where no period of limitation was prescribed in filing suit for recovery of dowry articles; provisions of Art. 120 of Limitation Act, providing six years period for filing suit in that respect, would be applicable, but when claim was for a specific moveable property or for compensation for wrongful taking, period of limitation was three years from the day, when demand for return of articles was refused; and possession over said articles became unlawful. Suit filed by respondent within three years, was not barred by time. Before amendment in West Pakistan Family Court Act, 1964 suits for recovery of dowry articles, no doubt were to be instituted in civil court, but after amendment in the Act vide Family Courts (Amendment) Act 1997, such cases either pending or instituted were made exclusively triable by Family Court. Suit, in circumstances, was rightly filed by respondent before Family Court, which was competent forum for recovery of dowry articles. Suit filed by respondent in circumstances fell within exclusive jurisdiction of Family Court. Family Court on proper interpretation of law, had rightly decided to proceed with the case and rejected application of petitioner. Petitioner having failed to make out a case for interference of High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, constitutional petition was dismissed. PLD 2007 Lahore 515. Muhammad Akram V/S Mst. Hajra Bibi & 2 Others S.5 Family Courts Act 1964 & Schedule. Column No.17 of the Nikhnama contained the stipulation that in case of sour relations between the spouses or divorce by the husband, a sum of Rs.100,000/- shall be paid to the wife. Suit of wife for dissolution of marriage was decreed, whereafter she brought the suit for recovery of Rs.100,000 which was dismissed by the Family Court holding that her suit was not maintainable before the Family Court and she was liable to file ordinary civil suit for the recovery of the said amount. Appellate Court, however, found that matter fell within the purview of Entry No.9 of the Schedule to S.5 West Pakistan Family Courts Act and suit was competent--- Validity---- Held, Entry No.9 of the Schedule to S.5 did not cover any amount which was not yet the property of the wife and she only had a claim to recover the amount from the husband on the basis of any special condition incorporated in the Nikhnama. Such claim could not be equated as a personal property belonging to wife. Amount in question was also not covered under the rule of “actionable claims” as envisaged by S.130 of Transfer of Property Act 1882. Family Court in circumstances, had no jurisdiction in the matter and the suit in that behalf before the said court was not competent-------- Principles--------- 2008 SCMR 1584. Muhammad Habib V/S Mst. Safia Bibi & Others S.5 & Schedule. Suit for recovery of dowry articles by divorced wife was decreed by Family Court and amount of decree was modified and enhanced by the Appellate Court. Contention of the husband was that no such list of dowry articles was prepared at the time of marriage, same was fabricated subsequently and in absence of valid receipts of purchase of said articles, suit could not have been decreed and that Appellate Court was not legally justified to modify the decree passed by Family Court and enhance the amount---Validity----List of articles revealed that those were ordinarily given to a bridge at the time of her marriage. No illegality or irregularity had been pointed out in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two courts below and upheld by the High Court assigning cogent and sound reasons calling for interference by Supreme Court. Impugned order did not suffer from any legal discrepancy nor any substantial question of public importance was involved in the petition against such order. LEAVE REFUSED. PLJ 2008 SC (AJK) 73 Raja Tahir Bashir V/S Mst. Gulsheeda Bibi & Others Dowry were perished during earthquake --- Substitute --- Price of dowry awarded. Held: Appellant had admitted in his written statement that the dowry articles including the golden ornaments were given to respondent at the time of marriage ceremony. Some of the articles of dowry were perished during the earthquake and some of them were in his possession. Witnesses for the appellant had tried to prove the fact that during the earthquake the dowry articles were received whereas the witnesses of the respondent did not visit the house of the appellant. Appellant admitted that some of dowry articles were still in his possession. Held: On admission of the appellant, excluding the price of the golden ornaments and considering the damage during the earthquake, it would be in interest of justice to fix the price of dowry Rs.100,000 instead Rs.150,000. APPEAL DISPOSED OFF PLD 2009 Lahore 359. S.5 W.Pak.Family Courts Act Schedule Part I. Item No.8 & S.19. Suit for recovery of dowry or its price in alternative---Appeal against decree for recovery of Rs.2,00,000 passed in such suit. Non-payment of ad valorem court-fee on memo of appeal---Validity---- Provisions of Court Fees Act, 1870 would not apply to such decree as decretal amount was in alternative of dowry articles. 2009 MLD 691. Mst. Amiran V/S Additional District Judge Bhakkar (Lahore) S.5 Sched. & S.14 W.Pak. Family Courts Act. Suit for recovery of dowry articles. Suit was concurrently dismissed by the Family Court and Appellate Court on the ground that she could not adduce even a single witness in support of her contention and in circumstances was not entitled for claim of dowry articles----Validity---Plaintiff had specifically stated the names of the articles and also the gold ornaments given to her at the time of marriage by her parents. She also had given the price of said articles. Respondent had not specifically cross-examined that part of the statement given by the plaintiff. Every reason in circumstances existed, to believe that the defendant had admitted the claim of the plaintiff. Defendant could not prove that dowry articles given to the plaintiff by her parents, were taken away by her. Sufficient evidence was available on the file to establish that dowry articles given to the plaintiff by her parents, were still lying in the house of defendant. Family court had wrongly non-suited the plaintiff on the ground that she could not produce any other witness in support of her contention. Courts below had totally ignored the fact on the record that defendant also failed to produce any other witness to rebut the contention of the plaintiff. Findings concurrently recorded by the courts below were totally unjustified, illegal, void ab initio and against the settled principles of law. Concurrent judgment and decree passed by the courts below were set aside and the plaintiff was held entitled to recover dowry articles. 2009 MLD 373. Sultan Bibi V/S Muhammad Sarfraz & 2 Others (Lahore) Suit for recovery of dower had concurrently been dismissed by the Family Court and Appellate Court. Contention of respondent was that petitioner, who had not come to the court with clean hands, was not entitled for any relief and that petitioner had entered into a third marriage posing herself virgin in the Nikah Nama and being her third marriage she did not bring any dowry articles and she was trying to blackmail respondent----Validity----Petitioner did not disclose in her Nikah Nama that it was her third marriage, which was sufficient to disentitle her from claiming discretionary relief in the form of constitutional petition.
Posted on: Sun, 05 Oct 2014 11:12:38 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015