| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2010 SLG 2890 = 2010 SLD 2890 = 2010 MLD 352 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No.1049 of 2009, decided on 27th May, 2009.
Ms. Jamila Jahanoor Aslam, J
Writ Petition No.1049 of 2009, decided on 27th May, 2009.
Ms. Jamila Jahanoor Aslam, J
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ---Petitioner
VERSUS
Mst. ABIDA BIBI and 2 others---Respondents
Law:
Section:
MS. JAMILA JAHANOOR ASLAM, J.---Through this writ petition the judgments/decrees, dated 14-2-2009 and 20-3-2009 respectively, passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Attock and the Additional District Judge are being assailed. The grievance of the petitioner is that vide the impugned judgments, decrees respondent No.1 has been allowed recovery of 4 tolas of gold ornaments. The backdrop of this situation is that the petitioner and respondent No. 1 had executed the civil contract of marriage on 5-4-2004. Unfortunately, this bond ended in dissolution of the marriage on grounds of Khula vide a judgment/decree, dated 27-3-2008 passed by the Family Court, Attock. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a suit for recovery of gold jewelry weighing 4 tolas against respondent No. 1 claiming that as the marriage had been dissolved on grounds of Khula respondent No.1 was bound to return the jewelry given to her by him as barn, because it will fall in the ambit of zar-e-khula. Respondent No.1 contested this suit. Out of the divergent pleadings the following issues were framed: Whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery four Tolas gold valuing Rs.1,00,000 as "Barri" from defendant as prayed for? OPP Whether plaintiff has no cause of action to file this suit? OPD. Whether suit is not maintainable? OPD Whether plaintiff is estopped by his words and conduct to file this suit? OPD Whether suit is time barred? OPD Whether suit is filed just to harass the defendant and defendant is entitled to' special costs? OPD Relief? Issue No.1 was the main bone of contention between the parties. It. was decided in favour of respondent No.1 and against the petitioner vide judgment/decree, dated 14-22009, of the Family Court, Attock. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge. Attock which was dismissed vide judgment/decree, dated 20-3-2009. The petitioner has- now assailed both the judgments/decrees of the Courts below. The contentions of the petitioner are that the claimed 4 tolas of gold ornaments fall in the ambit of Zar-e-Khula, and as the marriage of…