1996 PLP 272 (CLC)
GHULAM MOHYUDDIN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. FIRDOUS JAN and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1996 PLP 272 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Mehboob Ali Khan and Airs. Khalida Rachid, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM MOHYUDDIN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. FIRDOUS JAN and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 272 (CLC)?
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 1996 PLP 272 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Mehboob Ali Khan and Airs. Khalida Rachid, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 272 (CLC) (GHULAM MOHYUDDIN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. FIRDOUS JAN and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Ghazanfir Ali for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 5th July, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 5 & Sched.‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VIII, R.1‑‑ Marriage‑‑‑Mahr or dower‑‑‑Connotation‑‑‑New plea‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Marriage according to Muslim law is civil contract‑‑‑Dower ‑ or "Mahr" is that sum of money or other property which wife would be entitled to receive from husband in consideration of marriage‑‑‑Dower is either prompt or deferred or part prompt and part deferred‑‑‑Prompt dower would be payable on demand while the deferred dower is payable on dissolution of marriage by death or divorce‑‑ Dower fixed at the time of marriage as shown in "Nikahnama" was deferred‑‑ Husband, however, in his written statement filed before Family Court did .not choose by himself to go into that controversy but stated on the contrary that he had made payment of dower money to his wife before institution of suit and again reiterated such position in statement before Court‑‑‑Neither in written statement nor in his statement before Court husband took plea that dower was deferred one and payable on dissolution of marriage by death or divorce‑‑‑Plea of dower being deferred having not been taken before Courts below could not be agitated for the first time before High Court‑‑‑Parties could by mutual consent after marriage vary terms relating to mode of payment of dower at any time‑‑‑Husband's position taken before Family Court would suffice to say that deferred dower was later on changed into prompt one which according to husband's own plea had been paid by him to his wife‑‑‑Family Court was, thus, within its jurisdiction to look into the matter and decide factum of payment or non‑payment of dower to wife in the background of pleadings filed in case before it and evidence led in support thereof‑‑‑Judgment and decree of Court below being unexceptionable, no interference was warranted: ‑[Muhammadan Law].