2013 PLP 1903 (YLR)

ROOH-UL-AMIN KHAN, J.

By way of this constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, petitioner has called in question the judgment/order of learned Additional District Judge-III, Peshawar dated 16-11-2012, whereby petitioner's appeal was dismissed and the judgment/order of the learned Family Court, Peshawar dated 27-6-2012 vide which by allowing application of respondent No.1, plaint of the petitioner was returned to her for want of jurisdiction.

2. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record annexed with the petition.

3. Record divulges that petitioner Mst. Wagma filed a suit for recovery of Rs.200,000 as her dower against her father and husband respondents Nos.1 and 2, respectively. According to averments of her plaint, her Nikah with Ali Raza respondent No.2 was performed on 23-1-2011, in lieu of 3 Tolas gold ornaments along with 6-1/4 marla Plot, as her dower, and to this effect. Nikahnama was scribed. Later on, on the insist of father of the petitioner i.e. respondent No.1, the dower of the petitioner was increased to 5 Tolas gold, a house measuring 5 marals and Rs.2,00,000 in cash. It is admitted by the petitioner in her plaint that respondent No.2 (her husband) paid Rs.2,00,000 in cash to respondent No.1 (her father), but her father instead to pay the same to her, deposited it in his own Account No.1002697 MCB Mardan Road Branch Charsadda.

4. From the very heading of the plaint it is manifest that petitioner is seeking only recovery of Rs.2,00,000 as dower amount, thus she has not claimed rest of her dower. She has admitted in unequivocal words in her plaint that the amount of her dower i.e. Rs.2,00,000 was paid by her husband but her father, who deposited the same in his own account, is adamant to pay it to her. Thus, the controversy is between the daughter and her real father, for which, respondent No.2, cannot be held responsible. No doubt, wife is entitled to claim her unpaid dower, maintenance and dowry articles from her husband by filing a family suit, but situation in the instant case is quite different because respondent No.2 (the husband) has paid the said amount of dower to his wife, and his father-in-law and wife, have deposited the same in their joint account. Thus; in the circumstances, the family court lacks the jurisdiction in the matter, which exclusively falls within the domain of the civil court. The Family Court Act, 1964, provides mechanism and machinery for expeditious disposal of matrimonial matters between the parties, specified in (Part-I), of the Schedule; which pertains to:-- (1) Dissolution of marriage, (including Khula) (2) Dower. (3) Maintenance. (4) Restitution of conjugal rights. (5) Custody of children (and the visitation rights of parents to meet them). (6) Guardianship. (7) Jactitation of marriage (8) Dowry. (9) Personal property and belongings of a wife. Thus, except above, any other dispute shall not be amenable to the jurisdiction of the Family Court. The right forum for the petitioner was to approach the Civil court for recovery of the said amount and not the Family Court, as her grievance is not against her husband but against her father. Both the courts below have rightly attended the circumstances of the case and the law applicable thereto and were justified in returning the plaint to the petitioner, for presentation before the proper forum for redressal of her grievance. There is no illegality or violation of any law or any jurisdictional defect which may warrant interference of this court in its constitutional jurisdiction. Consequently, this petition stands dismissed in limine. AG/214/P Petition dismissed.