Suit for recovery of dowry articles

Husband pleaded that petitioners/parents of his deceased wife had no locus standi to file a family suit for recovery of dowry articles

Validity

Jurisdiction of a Family Court is circumscribed and is restricted to the "matters" mentioned in S. 5, Sched., which shows that it does not empower a Family Court to adjudicate upon a claim of a party qua his/her right of inheritance or Tarka

Petitioners being parents of deceased spouse, who was wife of defendant/respondent, sought share in the dowry articles being Tarka, for which they had approached the Family Court by way of filing a suit for recovery of dowry article and since determination of share in the Tarka of a deceased or its distribution did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Family Court, thus, suit was not maintainable and they had no locus standi to approach the Family Court

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner assailed judgments and decrees passed by courts below whereby respondent's suit for recovery of dowry articles and maintenance was allowed

Validity

Fact that dowry articles were brought by respondent with her at the house of petitioner had been proved

Gold (Jewellery) receipts were produced and exhibited through representative of the jeweler's shop

Objection that gold receipts pertained to the date before the solemnization of the marriage was not worthy of credit as it was normal practice that often the parents purchased gold ornaments for their children early for upcoming marriage

Respondent had successfully proved the claim, entitling her for the relief sought pursuant to maintenance and dowry articles as concluded by the Family Judge, endorsed by the appellate court as well

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Decree was passed in favour of respondent/wife for such (dowery) articles also that she alleged were missing from dowry articles under possession of the petitioner/husband

Held, that in her statement respondent/wife failed to mention anything about the list of articles nor produced /exhibited any list of dowry articles

Bailiff, on the directions of the Court, prepared a list of dowry articles which the wife alleged were missing

Respondent/wife was required to convincingly prove the preparation of those articles, by producing the relevant receipts or the shopkeepers concerned but the record was silent in said regard

Respondent could not establish the missing of any articles, therefore, in absence of any proof she could not be held entitled to the alleged missing dowry articles

High Court set-aside the judgment and decree passed in favour of respondent/wife to the extent of the alleged missing dowry articles

Constitutional petition was partially allowed, in circumstances.

Primarily a suit for the return of dowry articles, whenever decided, is decreed by the Courts as such with the observation that in case of failure, on the part of the judgment-debtor, to return the said articles, as an alternate, the amount equivalent to the price of dowry articles is to be paid and while determining the alternate value of the dowry articles, the Courts consider the depreciation of most of the dowry articles on account of normal and natural wear and tear thereof that takes place over the passage of time since marriage of the parties

Rationale underlying the application of principle of depreciation is that the dowry articles are to be returned in their current position and if the same is not done, their price is to be paid as an alternate and since most of the value of dowry articles put to use during subsistence of marriage do undergo depreciation on account of daily use, therefore, while determining the alternate price, it is justifiable that the depreciation in value of such articles is to be taken into account

However, one cannot lose sight of the fact that there may be some articles forming part of the dowry, for instance, the gold ornaments or the vehicles or even few electrical appliances, etc., value whereof may appreciate over the years.

Husband's (petitioner) case was that there was no evidence that the car was given at the time of marriage as part of the dowry and that the Appellate Court had wrongly decreed the suit

Wife's (respondent) case was that alternate price of the car had not been properly determined/ascertained by the Appellate Court and the prayer was made for award of current market value of the car and not the date on which it was given

Validity

In case of articles such as the car, while determining/ascertaining amount of money as an alternate price, the principle of appreciation should be kept in mind inasmuch as if the principle of depreciation is to be considered with respect to one set of the dowry articles such as furniture, etc., which involves depreciation of articles on account of wear and tear, the principle of appreciation must also be taken into account with respect to such other articles that involve increase in value

Failure to do so would not only by iniquitous but would also put premium on the unlawful retention of such dowry articles by the husband even after the dissolution of marriage or demand for return of the same by the wife

Wife was held entitled to recover the market value of the car as on the date of realization of the decree

Constitutional petitions were disposed of accordingly.

Any gift given to the groom at the time of engagement, cannot be treated as part of the dowry as the same is not the property of wife rather ownership vests with the husband

Dowry is only such articles that are given at the time of marriage to the bride and not the gifts to the bridegroom at the time of engagement.

Gold ornaments are always possessed by females unless snatching is not only alleged but also proved.

Husband's (petitioner) case was that there was no evidence that the car was given at the time of marriage as part of the dowry and that the Appellate Court had wrongly decreed the suit

Validity

Petitioner in response to the respondent's (wife) plaint had stated that the car was purchased with the cash provided by him, as such, it was also registered in his name in token of acknowledgment

Response of the petitioner, in his written statement, had exhibited an admission on part of the petitioner that the car, in fact, was purchased and transferred in the name of the petitioner, at the time of wedding, albeit with cash amount given by the petitioner

Petitioner had not proved his stance by leading any evidence

Moreover, there was no explanation as to why the petitioner remained mum and did not demand the delivery of the car, from the father of respondent for a considerable period of time, when the marriage between the parties was subsisting and the relationship was cordial, therefore, the assertion of petitioner that no such car was ever purchased or delivered to the petitioner was baseless and hence, discarded

Constitutional petitions were disposed of accordingly.

Sole statement of wife is sufficient to prove her claim of dowry articles and she is not required to prove the case in the terms of requirements of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, by producing a certain number of witnesses in support of her claim along with recording of her own statement.

Contention of defendant was that list of dowry articles was fabricated as being not signed by anyone and not proved at all

Validity

No legal requirement of documenting the list of dowry articles existed in Nikahnama or in other document or list, like as required for the details of dower amount, prompt and deferred

In the society, when the parents were making preparations of the marriages of their daughters, in normal course of life, they did not indulge in making lists or keep record of receipts of the dowry articles to prove the fact of purchasing the same or giving the same to daughters at the time of marriage, to prove in any Court of law, rather parents prayed and were desirous of sustenance of the marriage of the daughters

In very few cases the parents prepared such like record, otherwise in normal routine, the record of financial accounts and receipts of the dowry articles were not kept/maintained

Plaintiff was not obliged to prove her case in stricto sensu according to principles and provisions of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, as it was required under ordinary civil proceedings in civil court or criminal proceedings in criminal courts

Defendant was unable to point out any misreading or non-reading of the evidence or the record by the Trial Court

Trial Court had rightly passed the judgment and decree after considering the evidence and the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court had not committed any error of law by maintaining the same

Appeal was dismissed.

During pendency of appeal, petitioner (husband) filed an application for framing additional issues regarding the ownership of vehicle

Appellate Court dismissed the application while holding that findings of Family Court on the issue were comprehensive and no additional issue was required to be framed

Validity

Vehicle in question was registered in the name of petitioner

Question whether it was sold off to the petitioner or was given by the father of respondent as part of dowry articles had already been dealt with by the Family Court

No sale receipt was produced by the petitioner to show that it was a sale

Petitioner had not denied that transfer of vehicle was made immediately after the marriage was contracted

Very fact that no application for framing of additional issues was filed during 3 years of pendency of suit and one and a half year of the pendency of appeal showed that petitioner had raised the plea after a fatal delay

Writ petition was dismissed.

Defendant instead of contesting the suit filed application making an offer of taking special oath with regard to return of articles by him to the plaintiff

Offer of special oath was accepted by the plaintiff and in that respect the statement was recorded by the Trial Court

Suit filed by plaintiff was decreed and appeal filed against the same was also dismissed

Validity

Provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, were not applicable to Family Court's proceedings

Family Court could regulate its own procedure and was not bound by the rigors of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, but Family Court was not barred from settlement of the dispute on special oath

Subsequent objection of the defendant that it was in violation of Art.163 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, was not tenable

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Petitioner assailed judgments and decrees passed by courts below whereby respondent's suit for recovery of dowry articles was decreed

Validity

Respondent had established on record the dowry articles she took to the house of petitioner at the time of rukhsati, and even otherwise, there was no denial of the fact that parents do prepare dowry articles for their daughters

High Court observed that less burden was put on the shoulders of a wife to establish the claim of dowry articles, what to say of producing the receipts so collected and prepared

No irregularity or illegality was found to have been committed by the courts below

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Petitioner/husband assailed order passed by Family Court whereby it, at the time of recording respondent's evidence, had appointed a bailiff to recover and hand over the dowry articles admitted by petitioner to be in his possession

Validity

Petitioner himself had conceded partial claim of the respondent and of course order/decree could be passed to the extent of admitted claim

Petitioner, once having himself conceded possession over certain dowry articles in view of "Principle of Estoppel", could not be allowed to later on retract from his earlier admission

Impugned order had not caused prejudice to the petitioner or offended any legal provision warranting interference by High Court

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

High Court observed that it was not possible for any wife/bride to keep the record/ receipts of purchased articles or prepared list of dowry articles and obtained signature from bridegroom/husband side

Husband had failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Evidence led by wife in order to substantiate her claim of dowry articles was sufficient as she had appeared before the Trial Court and had also produced other witnesses who were subjected to lengthy cross-examination but they had remained consistent on material points

List of dowry articles was attached and duly exhibited in evidence, which consisted of routine articles and under no circumstances could be termed as unreasonable

Wife was held to be entitled to the award of decree

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Contention of plaintiff was that sufficient opportunities had not been granted for cross-examination upon the witnesses of defendant

Validity

Family Court had not granted sufficient opportunities to the plaintiff to cross-examine the witnesses of defendant

Sixteen opportunities had been afforded to the defendant to produce his evidence who had produced his evidence only on four dates of hearing

Family Court was not justified in closing the right of cross-examination of plaintiff, in circumstances

Right to cross-examination was a valuable right of the party and it was meant for discovering truth

No one should be deprived from the said right lightly

Opportunity to cross-examine a witness must be real, fair and reasonable

Rules of procedure were meant to advance justice and to preserve right of litigants

High Court granted one opportunity to the plaintiff to cross-examine the defendant and his witnesses subject to payment of costs

Impugned order passed by the Trial Court was set aside and Family Court was directed to provide one opportunity to the plaintiff to cross-examine the defendant and his witnesses

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Appellate Court, in the present case, while deciding appeal had not considered evidence produced by the parties in support of their claims and had relied upon the findings of Trial Court, which was not correct

Impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court was without any reason

Prices of dowry articles had been fixed on the basis of estimate

Judgment of Appellate Court being result of mis-reading and non-reading of evidence was set aside and matter was remanded to the Appellate Court with the direction to decide the same afresh after appraisal of evidence

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Respondent/wife claimed that she brought to the house of petitioner/husband dowry articles and gifts at the time marriage

List of dowry articles produced by wife was allegedly signed by the husband

Witness produced by wife stated that the dowry articles were sent to the house of husband and were received by him two days prior to the rukhsati by signing the list

Receipts of gold ornaments produced by wife were originated and were issued abroad and not in the name of wife nor she pleaded that she went abroad to purchase them

High Court held that wife had failed to discharge the burden of proof and the burden would not shift upon the husband to rebut her claim

Constitutional petition against the impugned judgments and decrees to the extent of dowry articles and gold ornaments was allowed, in circumstances.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 were not applicable to the family suits besides wife had been duly represented by her brother as her attorney, who appeared in the witness box on her behalf and stood the test of cross-examination

Non-appearance of wife in person in the witness box, was not fatal to her case.

Husband while appearing in the witness box had admitted that wife was given dowry articles, which he returned to her before panchiat

Husband admitted that no receipt was written regarding return of dowry articles

Husband further deposed that no panchiat was held before return of dowry articles nor return of dowry articles was settled through panchiat

Husband's witness asserted that five days prior to return of dowry articles he had decided in panchiat about the same

Return of dowry articles through a third person was required to be in written form

Holding of panchiat and the return of dowry articles through the said panchiat was doubtful

Husband failed to point out any misreading, non-reading or illegality in the judgment of Family Court

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Plea of husband was that dowry articles, as claimed by wife, were beyond the paying capacity of her family as her father was a beggar and did not own any land

Validity

Custom of society was that parents give dowry articles to their daughters even beyond their financial capacity; it could not be assumed that the parents of wife had not given dowry articles to their daughter

Constitutional petition, being devoid of merits, was dismissed.

Petitioner/husband contended that two Courts below should have decreed the gold ornaments receiving of which respondent had herself admitted and submitted that Appellate Court had not complied with the provisions of O.XLI, Rule 31, C.P.C. by not giving issue-wise findings

Validity

Record revealed that the petitioner in his written statement as well as in exhibited affidavit evasively denied the possession of the dowry articles and nowhere stated that due to financial constraints parents of the wife were not in a position to give her dowry articles

List of dowry articles was though not exhibited during the evidence but the same could not be made a basis to refuse her claim as the Family Courts Act, 1964 was a special enactment and the provisions of C.P.C. were not stricto sensu applicable to such matters

If the Appellate Court had decided to affirm the findings of the Trial Court, it would be sufficient compliance of the provisions of law if the evidence was essentially discussed and the findings were recorded

Mere non-adherence to the provisions of O. XLI, R. 31, C.P.C. did not make the judgment nullity in the eye of law

Petitioner in his written statement had not prayed for the recovery of the gold ornaments

Gift given to a bride at the time of marriage by the bridegroom became exclusive property of the bride and was not returnable

Custom was that parents do give dowry articles to their daughters merely as a token of love and symbol of honour

Petitioner had failed to bring on record anything from which it could be inferred that something contrary to the settled norms happened in respondent's case

Two Courts below had already decreed the matter, keeping in view the financial status of respondent's parents, the dowry articles of ordinary nature, which were almost given to a bride even hailing from a family having average financial background

Alternate price of dowry articles had also been very cautiously assessed by the Family Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court

High Court in the Constitutional jurisdiction declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the two Courts below

No infirmity or illegality having been noticed in the impugned judgment and decrees passed by the two Courts below, constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Wife filed suit for recovery of dower, maintenance allowance and dowry articles which was decreed to the extent of recovery of dowry articles by Family Court

Appellate Court modified the decree and wife was held entitled to deferred dower

Validity

No evidence regarding source of income of parents of wife was available from which it could be presumed that father of wife was in a position to give dowry articles as claimed in the list of dowry articles

High Court observed that parents gave dowery articles to their daughters at the time of their marriage according to their financial status but sometimes they had to exceed their financial limits and even get debt for the provision of dowry articles

Husband did not deny that dowry articles were lying in his house

Courts below had rightly decreed the claim of dowry articles.

Family Court dismissed the suit on the ground that scribe and author of the receipts of dowry articles were not produced for examination but Appellate Court decreed the suit partially

Contention of husband was that wife had shifted dowry articles from his house

Validity

Family Court rejected the evidence of plaintiff-wife on the ground of variations in the price of articles and their number in the testimonies of witnesses

Said discrepancies and variations were minor and were not fatal to the case of plaintiff-wife

Husband had not denied the factum of receipt of dowry articles at the time of marriage

Plaintiff wife had admitted that she had shifted some dowry articles to the house of her uncle

Family Court had wrongly viewed that wife had failed to give full details of each item of dowry articles mentioned in the list and price of the said items

Normally, dowry articles were handed over along with the list to the parents of male spouse at the time of Rukhsati

Dowry articles mentioned in the list consisted of daily use which were generally given to the brides at the time of their marriage

No dowry article mentioned in the list was extravagate or beyond the financial status of plaintiff's parents

Plaintiff could not be non-suited on the ground of minor discrepancies in her statement

Appellate Court had rightly set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court

No illegality or irregularity had been pointed out in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioner/husband contended that respondent/wife was not entitled to decree of Rs. 50,000/- as no dowry article was given to her at the time of marriage and she had failed to produce any receipt of the same

Respondent/wife claimed that in previous conversation between the parties, petitioner had admitted possession of certain dowry articles which conversation was adduced by her in evidence in shape of CD and written dialogue

Validity

Held, in most of the suits for recovery of dowry articles, both the parties try to conceal true facts, therefore, it was duty of the Court to decide the controversy in such a manner that no injustice could be done to either side

Family Court being quasi judicial forum could draw and follow its own procedure in order to fulfill said obligation provided it was not against the principles of fair hearing, trial and enquiry

Petitioner though had, denied the conversation, produced by wife in shape of CD, but his own witness had identified his (petitioner's) voice

In presence of such admission from the witness of the petitioner , there was no need for seeking forensic report

Family Court, in circumstances was not justified in discarding the vital piece of evidence

Even if it was presumed that CD was not admissible in evidence, even then the Court could not, ignore the admission on the part of witness of petitioner and Family Court could exercise its authority in the interest of justice

High Court observed that the articles produced by respondent, contained in the list ( except gold ornaments ) were of ordinary nature and usually given to bride at the time of marriage, so non-submission of receipts were not fatal

Family Court while passing impugned judgment and decree had caused grave injustice to the respondent-lady, who being weakest segment of the society could not be able to challenge the same at the appropriate forum

Petitioner having failed to defend his stance, therefore, in exercise of its supervisory powers and parental jurisdiction, High Court rectified the same in order to do substantive justice

High Court modified the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Family Court in the terms that respondent was entitled to recover dowry articles as per list exhibited by her, except gold ornaments , or its alternate price of Rs. 250000/-

High Court directed the office to send copy of present judgment to the respondent for information

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Petitioner contended that her dowry articles were under the possession of both her husband and her father-in-law so Family Court had wrongly deleted the name of her father-in-law from the array of defendants

Husband contended that the suit for recovery of dowry articles was always inter se spouses and his father was not a proper party for the purpose

Validity

Section 2(d) of Family Courts Act, 1964, stipulated that 'party' would include any person whose presence as such was considered necessary for a proper decision of the dispute

Wife, in a suit for recovery of dowry articles was competent to file the suit not only against her husband but any other relative of the husband whose impleadment or addition as a party for comprehensive decision and effective enforcement of decree would be necessary

In the present case, petitioner/wife had specifically averred that her dowry articles and personal belongings were in possession of her husband and her father-in-law and prayed against both the defendants

Family Court by accepting the application of husband to delete the name of father-in-law had misinterpreted the law on the subject and being so had committed illegality

High Court set aside the order passed by Family Court by holding that father of husband was a necessary and proper party for adjudication of claim of plaintiff in respect to dowry articles

Constitutional petition was accepted.

Petitioner contended that he being settled abroad at the time of marriage had restrained parents of respondent to give her dowry articles, however, whatever dowry articles were given to respondent were lying packed at his house

Respondent contended that though petitioner was settled abroad at the time of marriage but marriage was solemnized according to local rituals and she was liable to recover dowry articles as claimed according to the list

Validity

Original list of dowry articles was not produced by plaintiff/respondent, exhibited list could not be considered as conclusive proof of dowry articles especially when respondent admitted that neither the prices of articles were mentioned in said list nor the same was signed by anybody from petitioner's side

Though provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 were not applicable to family matters but when a party failed to prove its case as set out in its pleadings, court had to be very careful and cautious while giving any verdict in favour of said party

Bona fide on the part of petitioner/defendant was manifested from the fact that not only while filing written statement, he took the stance that the articles given by the parents of respondent were lying in packed condition in his house but also specific suggestion was put to witness of respondent in that regard during course of evidence

Said fact also found support from plea of respondent that just after twenty days of the marriage, petitioner went abroad and never came back

Another witness of plaintiff/respondent, during the cross-examination, admitted that the petitioner had restrained the parents of respondent to give her dowry articles on the premise that he wanted to shift her abroad

When list of dowry articles produced by a plaintiff in a family suit remained un-established, matter could be decided while relying upon the list attached by defendant with his written statement or the articles stated by him in his evidence

Impugned judgments and decrees were modified to the extent that respondent would be entitled to recover the dowry articles lying with the petitioner in packed condition

Executing court would be at liberty to appoint local commission as it was not possible to determine alternate price of packed articles rather it was left up to executing court to ensure determination of the prices of packed articles through local commission and in case of non-return of dowry articles, respondent would be entitled to their price to be determined by executing court

Order accordingly.