2002 PLP 2601 (YLR)

Azhar Naveed Shah for Respondents. Date of hearing: 1st June, 1999. The petitioner and respondent No.2 were married on 11‑5‑1993. A daughter was born out of this wedlock. At the time of Nikah the dower of respondent No.2 was fixed at Rs.35,000, shortly thereafter, the relations between the spouses became strained and the respondent No.2 filed three suits against the petitioner, one for recovery of dower, second for recovery of maintenance of herself and that of her daughter and the third for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty, non‑maintenance and Khula on 4‑1‑1994, 7‑6‑1994 and 12‑2‑1996 respectively. The petitioner also filed suit for restitution of conjugal rights on 7‑2‑1994. All these, suits were consolidated and by a common judgment, dated 25‑10‑1997, the learned Judge, Family Court, Rawalpindi, decreed the suit for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula in favour of respondent No.2 and against the petitioner. Suit for recovery of dower was also decreed in favour of respondent No.2. The third suit for maintenance was decreed to the extent of minor daughter of respondent No.2, while her own claim was turned down. Likewise the suit for restitution of conjugal right was dismissed.

2. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the decree passed by the learned Judge Family Court, dated 25‑10‑1997, in respect of suit for recovery of dower passed against him. The said appeal was, however, dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi by, his judgment dated 10‑4‑1999.

3. Being aggrieved of the said order, the present Constitutional petition has been brought assailing the said decree in favour of respondent No.2, mainly on the ground that, since the marriage was dissolved on the basis of Khula, respondent No.2 was not entitled to receive any benefit from the petitioner, including dower amount. Referring to Verse -229; Sura: Al‑Baqr it was contended that where the marriage is dissolved on the basis of Khula; it is desirable that the wife gives or returns certain benefits to her husband. It was also claimed that financial position of the petitioner was not such to make payment of the dower amount.

4. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner had challenged decree for dissolution of marriage in favour of respondent No.2. The said decree has, therefore, become final. Hence, at this stage, the petitioner cannot, find fault therein to say that the amount of dower should have directed to be not due to respondent No.2. Since the decree for dissolution of marriage has already acquired finality, any modification by reversing to another decree cannot rte made in the former decree. Even otherwise, it is well‑settled that dower is a debt and unless the wife waives the same, it is payable to the wife. The petitioner has not contested the amount of dower and that the same has not yet been paid to respondent No.2. He would, therefore,' be liable respondent, make payment of the amount of dower, notwithstanding the dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula.

5. In view thereof, there is no legal infirmity in the decree for recovery of dower passed against the petitioner and appellate order, dated 10‑4‑1999, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi. The present petition is accordingly being without any merit is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./S‑496/L Petition dismissed.