P L D 1956 Sind 47 (PLP)

The following issues were raised (1) What was the amount of dower debt settled at the time of marriage between the parties ? (2) What portion of the dower bebt has become prompt after the dissolution of the marriage ? (3) Whether there was any settlement of the dower debt as the time of dissolution of the marriage and whether the defendant gave ornaments and jewellery worth Rs. 4,000 in full and final settlement of the entire dower claim ? (3A) Whether the amount found due to the, plaintiff be paid to her at the present rate of exchange or at the rate prevailing, at the time of divorce, between Pakistan and Bharat currencies ? (4) To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitles ? My findings are as follows :‑‑ Issue No. 1.‑Rs. 10,

000. Issue No. 2.‑Whole amount. Issue No. 3.‑No. Issue No. 3A.‑The rate at the time of the divorce. Issue No. 4.‑Suit decreed with costs. Reasons Issue No. 1.‑The plaintiff, her father and brother who attested the entry (Exh. 11) in the marriage register signed by the parties have stated in their evidence that Rs. 10,000 was the prompt dower as recited in the entry. The Qazi who read the Nikah is dead and the entry was sent by his widow to the plaintiff from U: P. The defendant admits having signed the entry (Exh. 11). In his evidence he states that Rs. 5,000 was fixed as dower. But his letter (Exh. 11/5) to the plaintiff mentions recovery of Rs. 10,000 by the plaintiff. The defendant's explanation that it refers to the debt payable by his father to the father of the plaintiff is absurd. My finding on this issue is that Rs. 10,000 was fixed as prompt dower at the time of the marriage. Issue No. 2.‑The defendant in his written statement admitted that he divorced the plaintiff on 22nd February 1948 as alleged in the plaint. The whole amount, therefore, became payable on that date. Issue No. 3.‑The defendant in his evidence admitted having written a letter (Exh. 11/5) to the plaintiff which refers to a divorce by a letter. According to the plaintiff and her brother, the defendant wrote a letter (Exh. 13) to the brother of the plaintiff intimating divorce. But according to the defendant he wrote a letter to the brother of the plaintiff about divorce but this was not the letter written .by him. Hence there could have been no settlement of the dower date as alleged by the defendant as the divorce was not brought about by the relatives of the parties. The defendant has not called the witnesses in whose presence the divorce was given and the settlement arrived at. He sent no reply to the. laywer's notices (Exhs. 18 and 21) which he denies having received though he admits the acknowledgment receipt (Exh. 19). On behalf of the defend ant it was argued that the plaintiff did not mention any article or her property left with the defendant. But it would not show that these articles and other articles were given by the defendant to the plaintiff in settlement of the dower debt. My finding on this issue is in the negative. Issue No. 3A.‑‑In Ottoman Bank Nicosia v. Dascalo poulos (A I R 1935 P C.39) their Lordships of the Privy Council in a case from Cyprus held that the equivalent in Cyprus currency must be calculated according to the rate of exchange, whatever it may be, prevailing on the date when each installment became due. Reference may also be made to the Madhavji Vishram v. Ramniklal (I L R 47 Bom. 487) repelling the defendant's contention that the rate of exchange should be held to be that prevailing on the day of judgment. The dower debt became due in 1948 at the time of divorce and it was admitted that at that time the rate of a exchange between Pakistan and Bharat currencies was at par. My findings on this issue is that the plaintiff is entitled to the rate of exchange at the time of divorce. Issue No. 4.‑The result is that the suit is decreed with costs. A copy of the decree to be sent to the Collector for recovery of Court‑fee stamp. A. H. Suit decreed.