Law: Family Courts Act, 1964

Section: 2(d)

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 185(2)

Family Courts Act, 1964 (XXXV of 1964)-- ----S. 2(d)--Constitution, 1973, Art. 185(2)--Suit for recovery of dower against father in law and mother in law was decreed--Husband was not party in recovery suit--Suit was filed after sixteen years of marriage--Mother in law was neither a party in nikahnama nor signatory--Mother in law was not authorized her husband to make any commitment on her behalf--Challenge to--Mst. K was not a signatory to nikahnama nor had executed any other document agreeing to transfer property, either before or after a house was constructed on it, to her daughter-in-law--Mst. K also did not grant a power of attorney or otherwise authorize her husband to make any commitment”˜Declaration executed by respondent stated that his father had agreed to construct and deliver possession of property, which is of little consequence because, firstly, it is self-serving document and, secondly, property was owned by Mst. K who had not agreed to part with it--Mst. K had permitted her husband, expressly or impliedly, to transfer Property in terms of Section 41 of Transfer of Property Act is not borne out by record--Mst. K neither held out that her husband was ostensible owner of Property nor that she had authorized him to transfer it--Mehreen also lead no evidence to show that she had attempted to ascertain that Haji had power to transfer Property--Therefore, M could not avail benefit of Section 41 of Transfer of Property Act--If spouses of other sons of Mst. K were given land it was inconsequential since every marriage and its terms are independent from every other and there is no legal concept of parity--Mst. K was not a signatory to nikahnama nor had she, at any stage, agreed to transfer Property--Mst. K husband could not have made a commitment on her behalf with regard to Property--M also did not array her husband as a party to suit even though he was a necessary party thereto--M undoubtedly had a valid claim against her husband with regard to dower promised by him at time of marriage, as mentioned in nikahnama, and could claim value of Property from him however she elected not to do so but instead lay claim to Property--M could still claim…

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