Law: Family Courts Act, 1964

Section: 5, Schedule,S.14

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ----S.5, Sched. & S.14---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition-Suit for recovery of dowry articles or its price---Plaintiff claimed amount of dowry articles Rs.5,67,041, but Family Court vide its and decree granted Rs.3,72,150 for the same--Appellate Court reduced amount of dowry articles from Rs.3,72,150 to Rs.3,00,000---Witnesses produced by the plaintiff in proof of her claim, having not been cross-examined, their statements must be held to have emerged unscathed---Appellate Court did not give any sound reason for reducing the decretal amount to Rs.3,00,000---Appellate Court was bound to meet the reasons recorded by the Trial Court---View taken by the Appellate Court was without lawful authority being was not based on any evidence or sound reasons, but was the result of misreading of the material evidence-Judgment/decree passed by the Appellate Court was set aside and that of the Family Court was restored. Madan Copal and others v. Maran Bepari and others PLD 1969 SC 617 and Mir Haji Khan and others v. Mir Aijaz Ali and others PLD 1981 SC 302 ref. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J.--- Mst. Farzana Younis petitioner had filed joint claims for dissolution of marriage, recovery of maintenance allowance and recovery of dowry articles or in the alternative for an amount of Rs.5,67,041 as price of dowry articles. 2. The parties were put on trial on the following issues only to the extent of recovery of dowry articles "ISSUES (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for recovery of dowry articles as per list attached or in the alternative amount of Rs.5,67,041 as prayed for? OPP. (2) Relief." Both the parties led their evidence for and against Mst. Farzana Younis plaintiff herself appeared as P.W. and she examined in support of her claim Amanat Ali as P.W.2. These witnesses were not cross-examined by the defendant/respondent No.3, although numerous opportunities were granted to him. His right of cross-examination was consequently closed. On behalf of the plaintiff documentary evidence like Exh.Pl to P9 was also produced. 4. On the other hand, the defendant/…

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