| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2015 SLG 2767 2015 SLD 2767 = 2015 PLJ 133 = 2015 YLR 1260 |
Lahore High Court
W.P. No. 14838 of 2012, heard on 15.5.2014.
ATIR MAHMOOD, J.
W.P. No. 14838 of 2012, heard on 15.5.2014.
ATIR MAHMOOD, J.
NOOR INAYATvsADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TANDLIANWALA, DISTRICT FAISALABAD and 2 others--Respondents
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O.VII, R.11
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 42
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973------Art. 199--Constitutional petition--Suit for dissolution of marriage and recovery of dowry article--Question of--Whether plaintiff was entitled to recover dowry articles as per list annexed with plaint--Suit for recovery was partially decreed--Gold ornaments were not decreed simply on presumption that gold ornaments are usually kept by ladies with them--Validity--Since there was a categorically assertion that petitioner was ousted from house of respondent in three wearing apparels, then it was incumbent upon respondent to prove through some cogent evidence that she was not ousted from the house Courts below had failed to take into consideration evidence of parties in its true perspective--Petition was allowed.Judgment Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for dissolution of marriage and recovery of dowry articles before the learned Judge Family Court Tandlianwala on 01.03.2011. The averments contained in the plaint are that the petitioner was married with defendant 1� years before in accordance with Muslim Rites; that at the time of marriage, she was given valuable dowry, articles; that after sometime, the relations between the parties became strained and the respondent started to beat and maltreat the plaintiff; that he ultimately kicked her out of his house in wearing apparels six months prior to the institution of the suit; that the dowry articles are lying with the respondent; that the respondent is a man of bad character, therefore, she cannot live with her any more. The respondent contested the suit by filing written statement. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: "ISSUES 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover dowry articles as per list annexed with the plaint or in lieu its price Rs. 496500/- ? OPP 2. Relief." 2. After recording the evidence and hearing both sides, learned Judge Family Court, Tandlianwala vide judgment and decree dated 24.12.2011 partially allowed the suit of the petitioner for recovery of dowry articles as per list annexed with the plaint except Items No. 1, 28, 29, 30 and 31 or in alternate a sum of Rs.…