| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 282 2026 SLD 282 = 2026 PLD 20 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petitions Nos. 768 and 827 of 2022, decided on 28th November, 2024. (Against judgment dated 13.12.2021 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench passed in W.P. No. 2111 of 2013).
Presented By: Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Athar Minallah and Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, JJ
M.Waqar Rana, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 768 of 2022). Kh.Shahid Rasool Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No. 1 (in C. P. No.768 of 2022). Kh. Shahid Rasool Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in C. P. No. 827 of 2022). M.Waqar Rana, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No.1. (in C. P. No. 827 of 2022).
Civil Petitions Nos. 768 and 827 of 2022, decided on 28th November, 2024. (Against judgment dated 13.12.2021 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench passed in W.P. No. 2111 of 2013).
Presented By: Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Athar Minallah and Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, JJ
M.Waqar Rana, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 768 of 2022). Kh.Shahid Rasool Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No. 1 (in C. P. No.768 of 2022). Kh. Shahid Rasool Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in C. P. No. 827 of 2022). M.Waqar Rana, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No.1. (in C. P. No. 827 of 2022).
Mst. FAKHRA JABEEN and others---Petitioners
VERSUS
WASIF ALI and others---Respondents
Law: Family Courts Act, 1964
Section: XXXV,5
Law: Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961
Section: VIII,5,5(2A),5(3),5(4i),10
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)
Section: 129(e),VI
(a) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ----S. 5, Sched.---Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), S.5---Dower, recovery of---Columns-13 and 16 of Nikanama---Interpretation---Mentioning of dower amount in Column-13 and immovable property in Column-16---Family court held the wife entitled to dower mentioned in Column No.16 in the form of property; Appellate Court found her entitled to dower amount mentioned in Column-13 and property in Column-16; whereas High Court held that claim of dower mentioned in Column-16 was in lieu of the amount mentioned in Column-13, thus, if the latter obligation was discharged, then the wife was not entitled to recover the dower mention in Column 16---Validity---If the interpretation of the High Court is accepted then dower agreed to be paid in cash would have the effect of virtually making dower in other forms such as immovable or movable property redundant, which would negate the basic concept of dower i.e. parties out of free will agreeing to dower in any form provided it has a marketable value---Parties may, therefore, agree to dower being paid in cash in addition to and distinct from dower in any other form, such as immovable or movable property---Headings of columns in the Nikahnama are definitely not the determinant factor nor can they prevail over the intention of the parties, which would negate the very concept of dower---High Court had virtually rendered the right to dower agreed between the parties in the form of immoveable property as redundant by subjecting its effectiveness to fulfilling the obligation recorded under Column-13---Dower is obligatory and it could be anything which has a marketable value---It can be in the form of cash or property or both---Parties may agree to dower in the form of immovable property in addition to cash---Entry in Column-13 is definitely not a rider to entries in Columns-14, 15 and 16 as was held by High Court---Appellate court had correctly appreciated that the evidence and its interpretation regarding the entries in columns-13, 14 and 16 was in accordance with what the parties had intended at the time of execution of the Nikahnama---Judgment of the High Court was, therefore,…