Case Details

Citation(s)
2006 SLG 1941 2006 SLD 1941 2006 CLC 108
Peshawar High Court
Writ Petition No. 111 of 2004, decision dated: 23rd February, 2005.
DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN AND, JEHAN ZAIB RAHIM, JJ

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

MUHAMMAD IRSHAD-

VS

FOZIA NOREEN

Law:

Section:

West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)-------S. 5, Sched & 5.14---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Suit for recovery of dower and dowry articles---Family Court and Appellate Court below concurrently decreed suit for recovery of dower amount and dowry articles---Apart from dower deed an agreement was duly executed by the parties which had created liability on part of petitioner to pay dower which was prior in time to dower deeds---Dowry articles were denied by petitioner, but when Trial Court deputed its Bailiff to discover and seize the same, majority of dowry articles were found in the house of petitioner which were seized, taken into possession and were delivered to the respondent under order of the Court---Overwhelming evidence brought on record by respondent had fully established her case and both Courts below after applying their judicial mind with reasonable depth to each and every aspect of the case, both legal and factual, had arrived at a conclusion which was perfectly in accord with law and principles of justice to which no exception could be taken when no misreading or non-reading of evidence of nature causing miscarriage of justice had been pointed out---No case for interference in constitutional petition having been made out, same was dismissed. S. Hafeez-ur-Rehman Abbasi for Petitioner. Date of hearing; 23rd February, 2005. JUDGMENT DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.----Through this Constitutional petition the petitioner has questioned the judgments and decrees dated 30-7-2002 of the Family Court and dated 20-11-2004 of the Appellate Court, based on concurrent finding recorded by them. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in. view of the two dower deeds brought on record and the entries in Column No. 14 therein are inconsistent on the point of nature of the dower to which both the Courts have not attended in a legal manner and such omission has caused miscarriage of justice. Next he contended that the dowry articles were not taken into possession in a legal manner and an undue haste was shown by the trial Court adopting unprecedented procedure for its recovery. Further contended that even the…
🔒
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