1991 PLP 1649 (CLC)

Writ Petition No.5706 of 1988, heard on 12th May, 1991. ‑‑‑‑S. 5 & Sched.‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Suit for recovery of dower‑‑‑Dismissal of suit on ground that wife had given up dower amount‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Record showed that wife, while appearing as a witness, had stated in the first instance, that she had given up dower then in the same breath she had stated that she would never give up her dower amount‑‑‑Such piece of evidence having not been considered by the Family Court would mean that Court did not consider material evidence available on record in its proper perspective‑‑‑Wife's statement and terms and conditions of divorce deed were also ignored from consideration by Courts below which had resulted in grave injustice to wife‑‑ Case was remanded to Family Court for decision afresh, on basis of evidence on record, on its merits. Irshad Ahmad Virk for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 12th May, 1991. A suit for recovery of dower amount of Rs.5,000 was instituted by Mst. Noor Jehan before learned Judge Family Court, Lahore respondent No.2 against her husband, respondent No.1 on 22‑5‑1983. The suit was contested by respondent No.l by filing written statement in the case. As many as three issues were framed out of the pleadings of the parties by' the learned trial Judge. The learned Judge Family Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties dismissed the suit of the petitioner on 26‑3‑1988 on the ground that dower amount has been forgiven by the present petitioner. The appeal of the petitioner was heard and dismissed in limine by the learned Additional District Judge on 23‑5‑1988. The propriety of the judgments and decrees of the Courts below has been assailed by the petitioner by moving this Constitutional petition before this Court. Learned counsel contends that material evidence on record had not been considered by the Courts below which resulted in injustice to the petitioner. Attention of the Court has been drawn to the divorce deed (Annexure G) at page 37 of the petition disclosing that respondent husband asked the petitioner to give up the dower amount in, lieu of dowry. In other words according to the learned counsel dower amount was never forgiven by the petitioner. Learned counsel stresses that there is sufficient evidence available on the record to demonstrate that she did not give up her claim for recovery of Rs.5,000 as dower from the respondent husband. Statement of Noor Jehan petitioner has been perused by me. This shows that in the first instance dower amount was given up and then in the same breath it was stated by her that she will not give up the amount. This piece of evidence has not been considered by the learned Judge Family Court. Even otherwise respondent was served with a notice sent to him by this Court. He has not turned up to contest these proceedings. It appears that respondent is no more interested to contest the case. T his being so in my view the learned Courts below did not consider the material evidence available on the record in its proper perspective. The statement of the petitioner and terms and conditions of the divorce deed were ignored from consideration by the Courts below which has resulted in grave injustice to the petitioner. This being so, the case is remanded to the learned Judge Family Court to decide the lis between the parties afresh on the basis of evidence available on the record on its merits within next four weeks without fail. The petitioner shall appear before the learned Judge Family Court Lahore on 20‑5‑1991. The trial of the case shall commence from that date and shall be brought to an end within the above specified period. With these observations, this petition is allowed. AA./N‑455/L Case remanded,