2009 PLP 166 (YLR)
Syed MAZHAR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SARGODHA and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 166 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khalil Ahmad, J |
| Parties | Syed MAZHAR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SARGODHA and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 166 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 166 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khalil Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 166 (YLR) (Syed MAZHAR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SARGODHA and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ashraf Azad for Petitioner.
- Akhtar Masood Khan for Respondent No.3.
- 4. Learned Judge Family Court, as such, rightly decreed suit of respondent No.3/plaintiff which was upheld by the learned Additional District Judge. Learned counsel for petitioner was unable to point out any illegality or material irregularity in impugned judgments and decrees of both Courts below to warrant interference in Constitutional jurisdiction. The petition has no force and is dismissed.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 5, Sched & S.14
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Suits for recovery of dowry articles and for maintenance
Suit had concurrently been decreed by the Family Court and Appellate Court
Defendant was unable to point out any illegality or material irregularity in impugned judgments and decrees of both the courts below to warrant interference in constitutional petition
Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
KHALIL AHMED, J.
Marriage between petitioner/defendant and respon dent No.3/plaintiff was solemnized on 22-11-1996 according to Muslim .rites. Respondent No.3/plaintiff filed suit for recovery of dowry articles on 19-9-2002 and also filed suit for maintenance. Both suits were consolidated and contested. Petitioner filed written statement and learned Judge Family Court on pleadings of parties framed issues. Parties produced their respective evidence. The learned Judge Family Court vide judgment and decree, dated 25-10-2005 decreed suit for ornaments as per Mark-A or their value of Rs.55,000 and also granted maintenance of Rs.3,000 for the period of Iddat. Petitioner assailed said judgment and decree which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 20-2-2006. Hence this petition.
2. Respondent No.3/plaintiff appeared herself as P.W.I, Qasim Shah as P.W.2 and produced documentary evidence, Nikah Nama and list of articles of dowry. On the other hand, petitioner/defendant himself appeared as D.W.1. Petitioner deposed that respondent No. 1 had received all the dowry articles through Qasim Shah P.W.2 and ornaments were taken by her prior to divorce. In cross-examination he denied suggestion that it was written at the time of Nikah that ornaments of both sides would be the ownership of respondent No.3/plaintiff. He also admitted that he had not challenged column 17 of Nikah Nama and that dowry articles were given to Qasim Shah according to Mark-B which bears his signatures.
3. Mark-B produced by the petitioner himself does not find mention that all ornaments have been given. Petitioner has taken plea that ornaments were taken away by respondent No.3/plaintiff prior to divorce but has not produced any proof to the said effect.
4. Learned Judge Family Court, as such, rightly decreed suit of respondent No.3/plaintiff which was upheld by the learned Additional District Judge. Learned counsel for petitioner was unable to point out any illegality or material irregularity in impugned judgments and decrees of both Courts below to warrant interference in Constitutional jurisdiction. The petition has no force and is dismissed. H.B.T. /M-379/L Petition dismissed.