Law: Family Courts Act, 1964

Section: 5, Schedule

(a) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ----S. 5, Sched.---Dower---Dower amount was debt and husband was bound to pay the same on demand---Appellate court had found that payment of dower would arise when marriage between the parties stood dissolved---Validity---Findings of Appellate Court being not proper and legal, were set aside. [Paras. 11 of the ] 2003 CLC 702 rel. (b) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ----S. 5, Sched.---Maintenance of wife---Scope---Wife was staying away from the husband and was not performing her part of marital obligations and that too without any justification---Wife had failed to prove the maltreatment against the husband---Wife was not entitled for maintenance allowance---Findings recorded by both the courts below were based on evidence and valid and legal reasons. [Paras. 12 & 13 of the ] 2003 YLR 1006; PLD 1967 AJ&K 32 and PLD 1961 Pesh. 66 rel. (c) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ----S. 5, Sched.---Recovery of dowry articles---Contention of husband was that wife had taken away some dowry articles including gold ornaments---Validity---Husband had admitted that dowry articles which were lying with him could be returned---Husband could not prove that wife had taken away some dowry articles including gold ornaments---Exclusion of gold ornaments from dowry articles of wife in the impugned s and decrees passed by the courts below were based on mis-reading and non-reading of evidence---Wife was entitled for recovery of entire dowry articles including gold ornaments---Suit of plaintiff-wife for entire dowry articles along with gold ornaments was decreed---Family Court was directed by High Court to amend the decree accordingly---Constitutional petition was disposed of in circumstances. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: ANWAR HUSSAIN, JUSTICE:---.--- The Petitioner filed Family Suit for Recovery of Dower, Maintenance and Dowry Articles, against Respondent No.1, before the Family Court, Hyderabad, and contended that she was married on 28.12.2008 to Respondent No.1, against Deferred Dower, payable on demand of Rs.25,000/- and she was maltreated and ultimately on 9.3.2011, ousted by the Respondent No.1, from his house in wearing clothes and…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492