2005 PLP 1069 (MLD)
M. JAFFAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1069 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | M. JAFFAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1069 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1069 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1069 (MLD) (M. JAFFAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mian Riaz Ahmad Ansari for Petitioner
- Miss Shahida Saeed for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S.5 & Sched
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑Constitutional petition
Dowry articles
Solitary statement of wife‑‑‑‑suit for recovery of was dismissed by Family Court but Appellate Court allowed appeal and decreed the suit directing husband to pay the amount equal to the cost of dowry articles‑‑‑Plea raised by the husband was that only witness to prove dowry articles was wife herself and her statement was full of contradictions ‑‑‑Validity‑Rukhsati had taken place and naturally articles of dowry were shifted along with bride ‑‑Record proved that articles of dowry were given to wife at the time of Rukhsati‑‑‑For determination of value of articles of dowry, Appellate Court had rightly fixed the value on the basis of the statement of wife‑‑ No illegality was found in the judgment passed by Appellate Court‑‑Petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 29th March, 2005. This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 22‑4‑2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Khanewal, whereby he reversed the judgment dated 30‑9‑2003 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Khanewal, and held that Mst. Shahnaz Bibi, respondent No.3, was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000 as substitute for articles of dowry and accepted the appeal accordingly.
2. The facts giving rise to the instant writ petition are that respondent No.3 Mst. Shahnaz Bibi contracted marriage with the petitioner Muhammad Jaffar on 14‑3‑2002. At the time of Rukhsati her parents gave her various articles of dowry including two tolas golden ornaments, furnitures, utensils, bedding etc., of valuaing Rs.60,
000. The petitioner could not behave properly and she was expelled from the house. The petitioner was asked to return the articles of dowry, but he failed to do so. Therefore, Mst. Shahnaz Bibi respondent No.3 had filed a suit for recovery of articles of dowry valuing 88.60,000 against the petitioner Muhammad Jaffar, which was dismissed by the learned Judge Family Court, Khanewal, vide his judgment dated 30‑9‑2003. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, respondent No.3 Mst. Shahnaz Bibi had filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Khanewal, who vide his judgment dated 22‑4‑2004 accepted the appeal holding that "Mst. Shahnaz Bibi is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000 as substitute for articles of dowry". Hence this writ petition.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned First Appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the petitioner while the trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the respondent Mst. Shahnaz Bibi was unable to prove her case as her oral statement was set of contradictions; that no dowry articles were given to the respondent at the time of marriage and no such list was ever prepared or handed over to the petitioner at the Rukhsati and as such the learned First Appellate Court wrongly decreed the suit in favour of the respondent upto the extent of Rs.30,000 and that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge is based on surmises and conjectures.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment and submitted that certain articles of dowry were given to the respondent Mst. Shehnaz Bibi at the time of Rukhsati and in support of his contention she has relied upon the statement of P.W.1, Mst. Shahnaz Bibi, respondent No.3. In her statement, Mst. Shahnaz Bibi could mention the articles as a show case, a bed, iron boxes, beddings, clothes, dinner set and various untensils but she could not mention any ornaments.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. It is an admitted fact that Rukhsti had taken place. It will not be out of place to mention here that in our society if Rukhsati takes place, then naturally articles of dowry are shifted along with bride. So I am of the view that articles of dowry were given to the respondent Mst. Shehnaz Bibi respondent No.3 at the time of Rukhsati. But the question is as to what should be the value of articles of dowry. A reference is made to the statement of Mst. Shahnaz Bibi P.W.1, in which she could mention the articles as a show case, a bed, iron boxes, bedding, clothes, dinner set and various utensils but could not mention any ornaments. So I am also of the view that the learned Additional District Judge has rightly fixed Rs.30,000 as the value of the articles of dowry on the basis of the statement of Mst. Shahnaz Bibi P.W.1/respondent and there is no illegality in the impugned judgment.
7. In the circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed. M.H./M‑1008/L Petition dismissed.