1989 PLP 989 (MLD)

‑‑‑S.10‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 799‑‑Petitioner against whom ex parts: decree was passed neither filed appeal against that decree nor any application for setting aside same was filed, but straightaway invoked constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Trial Court had neither flouted relevant statute nor committed any illegality‑‑High Court refused to interfere with judgment and decree and execution proceedings against the petitioner. Sardar Najam‑ud‑Din Khan for Petitioner. Ch. Abdul Sattar and Muhammad lqbal Mahr for Respondent. Date of hearing: 14th January, 1989. On 26‑1‑1978 Mst. Hatizan Anjam, respondent No.1/ wife Fled a suit for the recovery of Rs.50,000 as dower money against Abdul Sattar, husband, before Judge Family Court, Chishtian. The petitioner defendant was proceeded against ex parte. h1st. Hafizan Anjum appeared as P.W.

3. She produced Qazi Muhammad Nawaz P.W. 1 to prove Nikahnama Ex. PI Qazi Muhammad Nawaz stated that dower of the marriage was fixed as Rs.50,000, which was payable on demand. Muhammad Akram P.W. 2 and Abdul Rashid P.W.4 supported the case of the respondent/wife. The learned Judge Family Court granted decree on 29‑5 1978. N1st. Hafizan then tiled execution proceedings for the recovery of decretal amount. The petitioner appeared before the Executing Court. While raising objection to the execution of the decree, the petitioner stated that his person and property was under the superintendence of Court of Wards, therefore, the decree could not be executed against him. On this, the Executing Court stayed proceedings vide its order dated 2‑6‑1980. In the meantime the property of the petitioner was released from the superintendence of the Court of Wards vide notification dated 12‑3‑1981. On this Mst. Hafizan Anjum applied for the execution of the decree and the Executing Court initiated execution proceedings by ordering the attachment of the property of the petitioner, hence this petition.

2. Relying on sections 15, 19 and 20 of the Punjab Court of Wards Act, 1903, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the person and property of the petitioner was under the superintendence of the Court of Wards and the petitioner was a ward, therefore, he could not fix any dower as consideration for his marriage. Since at the time of his marriage, the petitioner was incapable of creating any charge on his person and property, therefore, the suit of the respondent for the recovery of dower money could not have been decreed. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment of the trial Court.

3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I do not feel inclined to exercise constitutional powers of this Court in aid of the petitioner for the reasons that he, himself, had fixed Rs.50,000 1 as dower for his marriage with Mst. Hafizan Anjum and was a party to the agreement; that the marriage was consummated and a child was also born out of the wedlock, as such, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to resile from his liability and disown his responsibility on technicality. Although the petitioner could file appeal against the ex parte decree and also could file application for setting aside ex parte decree, yet he did not do so and has straightway invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court by filing this writ petition and that his B property has by now been released from the control of the Court of Wards. The trial Court has not flouted the relevant statute and has not committed any illegality. For what has been said above, I do not see any justification to interfere in exercise of the constitutional power of this Court, with the impugned judgment and decree and the execution proceedings against the petitioner. The petition is, therefore, dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T./A‑589/L Petition dismissed.