Case Details

Citation(s)
2017 SLG 1258 2017 SLD 1258 2017 PLJ 613
Lahore High Court
W.P. No. 25770 of 2014, decided on 9.2.2017. Date of hearing: 9.2.2017.
JAWAD HASSAN, J.
Mr. A.D. Bhatti, Advocate for Petitioners. Ustad Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate for
Respondents.

Mst. SADAF and another . ers

VS

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, FAISALABAD and 2 others . --Respondents

Law:

Section:

Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 --.-- --.-- Art. 199 --.-- Constitutional petition --.-- Dowry articles --.-- Financial status of her father --.-- Dowry articles were handed over about ¾ days before marriage --.-- Receipts of purchasing dowry article --.-- Factum of handing over and receiving of dowry article --.-- Validity --.-- Normally, the dowry articles were handed over along with list to parents of male spouse at the time of Rukhsati --.-- No doubt Courts are supposed to decide the cases in accordance with law but in family cases, particularly normal traditions of society cannot be ignored --.-- It has now become imperative for all parents irrespective of poor or rich to give dowry articles to their daughters at the time of marriage --.-- Petitioners had succeeded to prove her claim for recovery of dowry articles by adducing confidence inspiring evidence and appellate Court without referring anything from record, has set aside , Family Court. ORDER Through this petition, the petitioners have called in question judgment and decree dated 05.07.2014 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad and that judgment and decree dated 15.03.2014, passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Faisalabad. 2. Seemingly, the petitioners are aggrieved of judgment and decree dated 5.07.2014, whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad through the above said consolidated judgment dismissed the appeal of the petitioners to the extent of dowry articles and upheld the same to the extent of recovery of Rs. 5000/- per month as maintenance allowance of Petitioner No. 1 of her Iddat Period while that of Petitioner No. 2 to the tune of Rs. 5000/- per month with 10% annual increase and partially allowed the appeal of Khalid Javed/Respondent No. 3, as both appeals were emanated out of judgment and decree dated 15.03.2014. The claim of the Respondent No. 3, for custody of minor was declined with the direction to the Petitioner No. 1 to arrange meeting of the minor with the Respondent No. 3 once in a month. 3. Arguments heard and record perused. 4. From the perusal of record it reveals that after recording issue wise findings the learned Judge Family, Faisalabad has…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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