| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 539 2018 SLD 539 2018 MLD 454 |
Islamabad High Court
W.P. No. 2039 of 2016, decision Date : 19-10-2017, hearing Date : 11-10-2017.
MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, JUSTICE
M. Hussain Bhatti, Jameel Hussain Qureshi for Petitioners. Mirza Nabeel Tahir for
Respondent No. 2.
W.P. No. 2039 of 2016, decision Date : 19-10-2017, hearing Date : 11-10-2017.
MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, JUSTICE
M. Hussain Bhatti, Jameel Hussain Qureshi for Petitioners. Mirza Nabeel Tahir for
Respondent No. 2.
MAJOR ANEES-UR-REHMAN
VS
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ISLAMABAD AND ANOTHER
Law:
Section:
Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ----S. 5 & Sched.---Suit for recovery of dower and dowry articles---Allegation by wife of snatching gold ornaments---Paying the price of gold ornaments and dowry articles through local commission---Scope---Objections by ex-wife to the report of local commission---Effect---Petitioner/ex-husband contended that Appellate Court had wrongly granted decree of gold ornaments allegedly snatched as he had paid the amount to respondent/ex-wife in lieu of gold ornaments (dower) and the discrepancies in the dowry articles---Respondent/ex-wife contended that gold ornaments snatched by her ex-husband were not included in the said amount so Appellate Court had rightly decreed the same---Respondent/ex-wife in her evidence did not describe that the gold ornaments were snatched from her by the respondent and failed to produce the receipts of the 07 tolas of gold ornaments which she claimed to have been given by her parents---Held, that simply because no payment had been made by the petitioner/ex-husband for the 07 tolas of gold ornaments, the allegation as to snatching of gold ornaments stood proved---Even if it was assumed that the gold ornaments were snatched by the ex-husband from the ex-wife, the fact remained that according to the report of the local commission the dowry articles (with some discrepancies) were returned by the ex-husband through her brother---Said dowry articles included the gold ornaments in the list submitted by the ex-husband as well as the list she submitted---Report of local commission, did not find mention of the discrepancies relating to the gold ornaments---In lieu of the discrepancies, Rs.84,000/- had been paid by the ex-husband---Had the discrepancies in the dowry articles handed over by ex-husband been referable to the gold ornaments, she would have certainly filed objections to the report of local commission---Since ex-wife had not taken any objection to the report of local commission, such fact disentitled her to assert that she had not received the gold ornaments mentioned in the list of dowry articles---Appellate Court had misread the evidence on record, and decree passed by the said court was set…
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