Case Details

Citation(s)
2023 SLG 308 2023 SLD 308 2023 YLR 193
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 7446 of 2020, heard on 14th October, 2021.
SAFDAR SALEEM SHAHID, J

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

MUKHTAR AHMAD

VS

DISTRICT JUDGE and others

Law: Family Courts Act, 1964

Section: 5

Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ----S. 5, Sched.---Prompt or deferred dower--- Meaning--- Presumption of correctness attached to Nikahnama---Wife filed suit for recovery of dowry articles and dower through different suits---Both the suits were contested by the petitioner (husband)---Petitioner also filed separate suit for restitution of conjugal rights---Trial Court partially decreed the suit of wife and also decreed the suit for conjugal rights subject to the payment of dower---Husband filed appeal before Appellant Court, which was dismissed---Held, that there was no denial regarding the existence of Nikah---However, husband had shown his reservations regarding column No.16 of the Nikah Nama that land mentioned in that column was not settled as dower but it was written in the Nikah Nama just to show off---Amount of prompt dower was Rs.1000 which was mentioned in column No.13 of Nikah Nama which was payable on demand, whereas, in column No.16 of the Nikah Nama the property mentioned as 16 kanal was a deferred dower which could only be payable either in case of separation between the husband and wife or in case of death of the husband---Ten tolas gold ornaments were mentioned in Nikah Nama but nothing was mentioned whether the same was prompt or deferred, thus according to law it would be considered that 10 tola gold ornaments were to be paid on demand, because if the same had been paid by the petitioner as per his claim ,there must be mentioning of the same in the Nikahnama---Husband had admitted that Nikahnama was executed and all mentioned on Nikahnama in the column of witnesses had signed over the same---Witnesses who appeared in support of the husbands contentions had not shown any reservation about the genuineness of Nikahnama----However, husband had not produced any independent reliable confidence inspiring evidence regarding the property mentioned in column No.16 as just a show-off---Two witnesses produced for such purpose were closely related to the husband---Petitioner could have produced the Nikahkhwan who had solemnized the Nikah and had…
🔒
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