2003 PLP 1339 (CLC)

Messrs Sima Fabrics Ltd. v. Authority under Payment of Wages Act, Gujranwala and 3 others 1981 PLC 498 ref. Muhammad Faiz Kharal for Petitioner Muhammad Khalid Dogar for Respondent No

1. Nemo for the Remaining Respondents. Date of hearing: 25th March, 2003. Shama Bibi respondent No.1, who is wife of Muhammad Khurshid, had instituted a suit for recovery of dowry articles against the petitioner value thereof was assessed by her at Rs.1,49,

000. The same was contested by filing written statement denying any such liability, and objection to the maintainability of the suit was also raised by him. Issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties were framed by the Court, whereafter evidence was produced by the parties. Respondent Shama Bibi appeared as P.W.1, whereas Ghulam Muhammad P.W.2, and Muhammad Hanif P.W.3,'were produced by her. The petitioner Ahmad Din, himself appeared as "D.W.1 and produced Qurban Ali D.W.2 and Bashir D.W.3. Vide judgment dated 15-2-2001, the suit was decreed by the Judge Family Court, Pasroor to the extent of Rs.40,000 by assessing value of articles of dowry. Appeal preferred there-against by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot on 7-11-2001. It may be mentioned that cross-objections filed by the respondent Shama Bibi were also dismissed through the same judgment. This is writ petition there-against by Ahmad Din petitioner whose case is that Muhammad Khurshid was not his son but only his marriage was arranged by him with Mst. Shama Bibi, respondent No.1 and that later on relations having become strained with the spouses, they shifted to the' house of parents of Muhammad Khurshid and also took away the articles of dowry. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the two Courts below have acted illegally who have ignored the admitted fact of the matter that the petitioner had no connection whatsoever except that he had arranged the marriage by spending lot of money from his own pocket. It is thus contended that the findings recorded by the two Courts below in the matter have hardly any sanctity which need to be reversed. The learned counsel for respondent Shama Bibi, supports the judgments of the two Courts below and contends that findings concurrently recorded cannot be interfered by this Court in writ jurisdiction and that it was the petitioner's house where Mst. Shama Bibi had been living with her husband Muhammad Khurshid and the articles of dowry were kept there.

2. Since the matter has been argued by the learned counsel for the parties at length, I propose to dispose of the same as a regular matter finally.

3. There is no denial of the fact and is rather admitted position that the petitioner is neither father of Muhammad Khurshid the husband of Mst. Shama Bibi nor is a near relation. Since he had no issue of his own, he had arranged the marriage of Muhammad Khurshid with Mst. Shama, Bibi and incurred expenses on their marriage. After marriage they lived; in his house for some time but left his house and shifted to the house of parents of Muhammad Khurshid, who belong to same village. The petitioner had been clamouring and decrying that articles of dowry had been taken by the spouses and shifted to the house of the in-laws of Mst. Shama Bibi. This was so stated by him and deposed, which, however, did not receive due attention of the Courts below. The testimony of Mst. Shama Bibi was vague, fraught with inconsistencies and lacked necessary supporting proof. Preponderance of the evidence, the totality of the circumstances and the background of the case when kept in view, the inevitable conclusion is that it wasp a move designed by the spouses on their relations becoming sour and strained with the petitioner. It may be stated that the petitioner had instituted a suit for declaration against Muhammad Khurshid, which was decreed in his favour on 9-2-2000, whereas the suit for recovery of dowry' articles was instituted by Mst. Shama Bibi, afterwards. An issueless person of advanced age, had perhaps acted benevolently in arranging the marital tie, but had to face litigation in the Courts, which treatment for his act of benignity, he did not deserve.

4. Surprisingly Muhammad Khurshid husband of Mst. Shama Bibi was neither impleaded as party to the suit not was produced as a witness. His stance and testimony would have been of much relevance. The maintainability of such a suit before the Family Court was highly questionable. Reference to the preamble to Family Courts Act, 1964 I would make it abundantly clear that the object of establishment of Family Courts was the expeditious settlement and disposal of disputes relating to "marriage" and "family affairs". The very concept of marriage would envisage the spouses i.e. husband and wife. Muhammad Khurshid, in the context and the peculiar background was necessary party and no effective determination could be made in his absence. The suit could have been dismissed for that reason alone, but in writ jurisdiction in order to bring to an end the litigation between the parties, I propose to dispose of the matter once for all. Such a course was adopted by this Court m Messrs Sima Fabrics Ltd. v. Authority under Payment of Wages Act, Gujranwala and 3 others 1981 PLC 498, where despite the view taken by the Court that the Courts below had acted totally without lawful authority, the controversy between the parties was sought to be resolved. It may be observed that while entertaining this petition; operation of the impugned judgment and decree was suspended subject to making deposit of Rs.10,000 by the petitioner. He made the said deposit. In order to bring to an end this controversy he has offered to pay the said amount of Rs.10,000 to respondent No.1. I, therefore, consider it proper that respondent No. 1, should feel content with the amount offered to her. She can withdraw the same from this Court. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. M.B.A./A-755/L Order accordingly.