| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2020 SLG 316 2020 SLD 316 2020 YLR 188 |
Peshawar High Court
Writ Petition No. 4744-P of 2019, decision & hearing Dated: 30-08-2019.
MUHAMMAD NAEEM ANWAR, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Qazi Zakauddin and Hidadayat Ullah Khan
Writ Petition No. 4744-P of 2019, decision & hearing Dated: 30-08-2019.
MUHAMMAD NAEEM ANWAR, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Qazi Zakauddin and Hidadayat Ullah Khan
PERVEZ ALI
VS
MST. RAZIA BEGUM AND 2 OTHERS
Law: Family Courts Act, 1964
Section: 5, Schedule
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O.II,R.2
(a) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ----S.5, Sched.---Dower and maintenance allowance, recovery of---Wife filed suit for recovery of dower and maintenance allowance---Wife, filed application to the effect that she had received an amount of Rs. five lac through cheque as her maintenance allowance and rest of the claim would be settled privately---Joint statement of both the parties was recorded and suit was disposed of on 27.9.2014---Wife on 15.5.2015, filed suit for recovery of dower as husband never turned up for settlement---Said suit was partially decreed---Validity---Record revealed that the wife had sought recovery of possession of agricultural property along with a constructed house, which, as per her contention, were given to her in lieu of her dower---Husband-defendant in his written statement had admitted that he had given his share from his ancestral property to the wife along with constructed house---Factum of deed dated 16.3.1985, on the basis of which dower had been paid, was denied---Petitioner/husband had also asserted that the house was jointly owned by him with brothers and the amount to the extent of her share in the house was paid to her---Petitioner in his written statement, though, had admitted the fixation of dower, but had taken the stance that the respondent-wife to whom the property was transferred, in lieu of dower, had alienated it to another person---Respondent/wife while appearing as witness had reiterated the factum of fixation of dower and non-payment thereof, which portion of the statement remained un-rebutted, which would be considered to have been admitted---Similarly, the respondent-wife had received the amount of share in the house---Evidently, no property was ever mutated in the name of the respondent-wife, as such, she could never transfer it to other person---Petitioner/husband could not produce any evidence regarding payment of share in the house to the respondent-wife---Petitioner/ husband had failed to prove that any property either constructed or otherwise was given to the respondent-wife---Constitutional petition being without any merit was dismissed in limine. (b) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ----S. 5,…
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