2006 PLP 349 (YLR)

MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.

On 12-12-1995 the respondent No.3 filed a suit against the petitioner for recovery of dower. In the plaint, it was stated that the parties were married on 21-8-1995. 20 tolas gold and a Square of land was fixed as dower payable on demand which has not been paid despite demand. In his written statement, the petitioner took the plea that there is no Nikahnama between the parties and there was no question of fixation of any dower. He also stated that he has filed a declaratory suit which is pending. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court decreed the suit to the extent of half the amount of dower on 2-9-2003. An appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge, Multan, on 15-6-2005.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Nikahnama was not proved in accordance with law. According to him, there is a serious irregularity in the matter of registration of the Nikahnama. Against the dismissal of his suit for declaration and the first appeal, C.R. No.346 of 2002 is pending in this Court.

3. I have gone through the copies of the records, with the assistance of the learned counsel. The Nikahnama was introduced in the statement of the respondent as P.W.1. It is Exh. P.1. She states that it bears her signatures as also of the petitioner. She was cross-examined at length but nothing material turned out. P.W.2 is Abdul Razzaq who brought the Register of Nikah and stated that the Nikah is entered in his Register and he had also recited the Nikah and he had filled up the several columns on the asking of the petitioner. In his cross-examination, he stated that the Nikah was performed in Sabzazar Colony, Bosan Road. He knew the petitioner 5/6 months prior to the Nikah. Muhammad Qadoos P.W.3 stated that the Nikah was performed in his presence and the parties put their respective signatures thereon.

4. Now the learned counsel points out that the Nikah was not registered in the relevant Ward or Union Council. To my mind, even if there is an irregularity in the registration, it does not derogate from the validity of the Nikah. The only consequence is that if a Family Court finds that a Nikah has not been registered at all, it shall report the matter to the relevant Union Council.

5. Now Exh.P.4 is the copy of judgment dated 16-12-2000 in the suit referred to in the written statement. The main issue pertained to the allegation that there is no Nikah between the parties and it was answered against the petitioner vide judgment and decree dated 16-12-2000. Against this judgment and decree, Family Appeal No.12/13 of 2001 was filed and it was dismissed by learned District Judge, Multan, on 20-3-2002 which is Exh.P.5.

6. I have requisitioned the file of C.R. No.346 of 2002 and I find that a pre-admission notice was issued on 15-4-2002. The civil revision was dismissed for non-prosecution on 16-2-2002. It was restored on 20-5-2002. It was again dismissed for non-prosecution on 10-9-2003. It was then restored on 21-6-2004. It was again dismissed for non-prosecution on 10-1-2005 and was then restored on 12-1-2005.

7. As noted by me above, the suit for all intents and purposes was a Family Court suit for jactitation and was decided as such and the family appeal was dismissed. I will not be commenting any further as the said civil revision is pending.

8. Be that as it may, to my mind, the Nikahnama stands proved on record. I may note here that the Nikahnama is a public document and a copy thereof is admissible per se as held in the case of Mst. Zubaida Bibi and others v. Mst. Majidan and another 1994 SCMR 1978. However, sufficient evidence has been led apart from the document itself to prove the factum of Nikah between the parties.

9. No misreading or non-reading of the evidence stands pointed out. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. F.M./S-2/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.