Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

Constitution of Pakistan, 1973--

----Art. 199--Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance, dower, dowry articles and gold ornaments--Partially decreed--Appeal--Dismissed--Non-challenging of entries of nikahnama--Obligation of petitioner--Preference of documentary evidence--Challenge to--Case of petitioner/defendant is that respondent/plaintiff No. 1 maneuvered entries of Nikahnama but failed to prove same through confidence inspiring evidence--Petitioner/defendant has not challenged entries of Nikahnama before any competent forum. There is no cavil to proposition as held in number of s by superior Courts that oral evidence cannot be given preference to documentary evidence--Petitioner/defendant is under an obligation to pay of Rs. 5,000/-and a house measuring 15-marlas or its market value as dower/haq-ul-Mehar to Respondent No. 3/ex-wife as he never objected to entry in Nikahnama at time of marriage rather endorsed same by signing Nikahnama. Hence, findings of learned Courts below are upheld/maintained--Courts below have meticulously examined entire evidence of parties and thereafter reached at conclusion regarding controversy. Neither any misreading or non-reading of evidence on record nor any infirmity, legal or factual, has been pointed out in impugned s and decrees passed by Courts below--Petition was dismissed.  [Pp. 224 225] A, B, C D

2010 SCMR 473 and 2010 SCMR 1073 ref.

Order

Brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are that the Respondents No. 3 and 4/plaintiffs being wife and son filed a composite suit for recovery of maintenance allowance, dower, gold ornaments, dowry articles and possession of house. The defendant/petitioner resisted the suit by way of filing the written statement and by raising factual as well as legal objections. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties issues were framed by the learned trial Court. The parties produced their respective evidence and after recording the same, learned trial Court partially decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 28.03.2017 to the effect that the plaintiff No. 1 is entitled to recover her maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 6000/-per month for her Iddat period. The plaintiff No. 2 being minor son is entitled to maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 2500/-per month with 10% annual increase from the institution of the suit till his legal entitlement. The plaintiff No. 1 is also entitled to recover Rs. 5000/-as dower on demand. She is also entitled to get alternate price of house measuring 15-marlas from defendant. Plaintiff No. 1 is also entitled to recover Rs. 50,000/-also alternate price of dower articles, however, the suit for recovery of gold ornament was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner/defendant filed appeal and learned Additional District Judge vide judgment decree dated 17.04.2018 dismissed the same. Being dissatisfied, the petitioner/defendant has filed the instant writ petition and challenged the validity of the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below to the extent of dower of Rs. 5000/-and a house measuring 15-marlas.

2. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

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