Law: Family Courts Act, 1964

Section: 5

(a) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)---

----S. 5, Sched.---Suit for recovery of dower (85 Misqal gold)---Dower--- Proof--Claim of the plaintiff/lady was concurrently decreed to the effect that only 15 Misqal gold, out of fixed 100 Misqal gold, was given to her---Plea taken by the petitioner/husband was that 24 Misqal gold had been paid at the time of Nikkah--Validity---Haq-Meher (dower amount), was admittedly fixed as 100 Misqal gold, as the witnesses of the petitioner/husband before the Trial Court had admitted said fact---Record (evidence) revealed that the petitioner failed to prove his plea, therefore, the decree to the extent of 85 Misqal gold as Haq-Meher, had correctly been passed by both the Courts below by appreciating the evidence produced by the parties---Constitutional petition, filed by husband, was disposed of.

(b) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)---

----S. 5, Sched.---Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance---Father/husband alleged to be of unsound mind---Proposition was whether the defendant (husband/father) was of unsound mind---Held, that though the proposition, whether petitioner No.1 (defendant/ husband/father) was of unsound mind, had been decided by the Trial Court in negative by holding that said question / proposition could be confirmed by medical evidence, but at the same time petitioner No.2 (grand-father/defendant) was directed to pay the decretal amount to respondents/plaintiffs (wife and daughter), meaning thereby the Trial Court in the light of case Jamila Begum v. Awam-un-Nass" PLD 1978 Lah. 1376 had impliedly held that the petitioner No. 1 was of unsound mind; even otherwise in view of the dictum laid down in the case Sultan Ahmad v. Judge Family Court" PLD 2012 Lah. 148, the petitioner No. 2 (grand-father) was rightly directed to pay the decretal amount, being grandfather of minors---No illegality or infirmity had been noticed in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below--Constitutional petition, filed by the defendants (father and grand-father), was disposed of.