2025 PLP 720 (YLR)
Mst. Shaista Hameed — Petitioner Versus Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), District Mianwali and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2025 PLP 720 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. Shaista Hameed — Petitioner Versus Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), District Mianwali and 4 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Family Courts Act ( XXXV of 1964 ) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2025 PLP 720 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Family Courts Act ( XXXV of 1964 ) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2025 PLP 720 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2025 PLP 720 (YLR) (Mst. Shaista Hameed — Petitioner Versus Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), District Mianwali and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Matee Ullah and Mirza M. Hamza for Petitioner.
- Imran Shaukat Rao, Assistant Advocate Genreal.
- Athar Yar Khan Awan for Respondent . 3.
- Conversely, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that prior to the case of Muhammad Yousaf supra, the Deputy Commissioner being the controlling authority was vested with the power to decide the matter qua the genuineness of the Nikahnama and in the present case Nikah Khawan appeared before respondent No.1 and categorically deposed that the disputed entries were interpolated and hence, nothing will turn around in favour of the petitioner even if the matter is tried by the Family Court where statedly petitioner's suit, inter alia, for recovery of dower is pending.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 5 & Sched.
Suit for recovery of dower (gold ornaments) on the basis of entries in Nikahnama
While suit filed by lady was pending adjudication before the Family Court, Nikah Khawan deposed before the concerned Additional Deputy Commissioner (General)[ADC(G)]that the disputed entries of Nikahnama were interpolated
ADC (G), on said statement of Nikah Khawan before it, passed an adverse order against the plaintiff /lady
Contention of the petitioner /plaintiff was that ADC(G) had no authority to pass the impugned order
Case of the petitioner was that any dispute regarding the sanctity of the Nikahnama, being a registered document, was to be determined by the Family Court to the exclusion of all other authorities
Plea of the defendant / respondent was that ADC(G),being the controlling authority, was vested with the power to decide the matter qua the genuineness of the Nikahnama and in light of statement of Nikah Khawan, nothing would turn around in favour of the petitioner /plaintiff even if the matter was tried by the Family Court
No doubt, the Nikahnama is a registered document, to which presumption of truth is attached and whenever a party (mostly wife) institutes a suit for recovery of dower for enforcement of any right thereunder, unless the interpolation is proved, the Court leans in her favour on the basis of presumption of truth, which is certainly rebuttable
In the present case, statement of Nikah Khawan before an authority under the law had its own evidentiary value, which could only be determined by the Court of competent jurisdiction where the matter was pending
Therefore, High Court set-aside the impugned order passed by the ADC(G) with the observation that the respondent / defendant could rely upon the proceedings recorded before the ADC (G), including statement of the Nikah Khawan, however, the veracity and the evidentiary value thereof would be determined by the Family Court concerned
Constitutional petition, filed by plaintiff / lady, was allowed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
Anwaar Hussain, J.
It is the case of the petitioner that any dispute regarding the sanctity of the Nikahnama, which is a registered document under the law, is to be determined by the Family Court to the exclusion of all other authorities including the Civil Court as held in case reported as "Muhammad Yousaf v. Additional District Judge, Multan and others" (2023 SCMR 1002) and therefore, respondent No.1 /Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), District Mianwali, had no authority to pass the impugned order. Conversely, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that prior to the case of Muhammad Yousaf supra, the Deputy Commissioner being the controlling authority was vested with the power to decide the matter qua the genuineness of the Nikahnama and in the present case Nikah Khawan appeared before respondent No.1 and categorically deposed that the disputed entries were interpolated and hence, nothing will turn around in favour of the petitioner even if the matter is tried by the Family Court where statedly petitioner's suit, inter alia, for recovery of dower is pending.
3. Heard.
4. There is no cavil to the proposition that the Nikahnama is a registered document, to which presumption of truth is attached and whenever a party (mostly wife) institutes a suit for recovery of dower or for, enforcement of any right thereunder, unless the interpolation is proved, the Court leans in her favour on the basis of presumption of truth, which is certainly rebuttable. In the instant case, statement of Nikah Khawan before an authority under the law has its own evidentiary value, which can only be determined by the Court of competent jurisdiction where the matter is pending. Therefore, impugned order dated 19.08.2024 is set aside with the observation that the respondent can always rely upon the proceedings recorded before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (General)/respondent No.1, including statement of the Nikah Khawan, however, its veracity and the evidentiary value thereof will be determined by the Family Court concerned.
5. The petition is allowed in above terms. MQ/S-1/L Petition allowed.