2011 MLD 152 (PLP)

TARIQ JAVED, J.

The petitioner, through this Constitutional petition has. assailed the judgment and decree dated 31-3-2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan and judgment and decree dated 1-6-2007 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Multan whereby suits of the petitioner and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were consolidated and were decreed. Respondent No. 3 filed a suit for recovery of dower and suit for recovery of maintenance allowance whereas petitioner instituted a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. All the three suits were consolidated and both the learned Courts below passed the impugned judgments and decrees in favour of respondents Nos. 3 and 4.

2. The petitioner maintained that both the Courts below have misread the evidence on record; that entry of 10 acres of agricultural land in the Nikahnama was result of forgery and hence respondent No. 3 was not entitled to get the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Arbab Mir Muhammad v. Mst. Iram Iltimas and 4 others PLD 2005 SC 24; Mst. Jameela Begum v. Additional District Judge and 3 others 2005 MLD 376 Mst. Falak Naz v. Federal Land Commission, Islamabad and another (2002 CLC 518) and Sabir Hussain v. Nusrat Bibi (2009 YLR 1272).

3. Respondent No. 3 maintained that marriage between her and the petitioner was solemnized on 20-1-1993 and respondent No. 4 was born out of their wedlock. The petitioner contracted second marriage without her consent and he is living with second wife and has failed to pay maintenance to her an minor child for the last five years prior to institution of the suit of respondents Nos. 3 and 4; that the petitioner is man of means and he is earning Rs. 60,000 per month and that the respondent No. 3 and her minor are entitled to get the maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.6,000 per month each. Respondent No. 3 also maintained that Haq Mahr fixed at the time of marriage was on Khoti measuring two kanals of land situated at Mauza Jangle Jaswant Garh Tehsil and District Multan wherein she is residing and 10 acres of agricultural land. However, it was maintained that after having given the suit-land in dower the petitioner had sold it and only 27 kanals and few marlas were left which were given to the petitioner against dower along with a sum of Rs.13,10,00 i.e. the cost of land sold by the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for respondents Nos. 3 and 4 maintained that the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below were perfectly valid and based on testimony of the witnesses produced before the Trial Court; that the petitioner was man of means and he can easily afford to wife and minor child but the petitioner is living with his second wife whereas the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are being deprived by the petitioner from the basic necessities.

5. Heard. Record perused.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to point out any illegality in the impugned judgment which he has not been able to show. In 2002 CLC 518 it was held that transaction of transfer of land in lieu of dower in favour of wife stood completed at the time of Nikah and that there was no need of registration of deed in favour of the wife. Therefore, it is sufficient that 10 acres of agricultural land as narrated in Nikahnama was given to respondent No. 3 in lieu of dower along with house consisting of two Kanals, hence me learned trial Court has rightly come the conclusion that respondent No. 3 was entitled to the possession of 27 kanals and an amount of Rs.13,10,000 as sale proceeds of the suit land. Similarly in Mst. Jameela Begum v. Additional District Judge and 3 others (2005 MLD 376), it was held that the entry in the Nikahnama was sufficient proof of transfer of property and it required no registration and registration of any other document for completion of transaction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of cases has held that in such-like cases the possession of the land stands transferred as soon as the entries are made in the Nikahnama and parties enter into marriage. Similarly, the petitioner is man of means and he can easily afford to provide maintenance allowance, for his minor daughter living with respondent No.3. This writ petition being without merit is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./S-204/L Petition dismissed.