Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD AMEEN VS Respondent: MST. BILQEES BEGUM
1988 S C M R 2000
1988 S C M R 2000
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
MUHAMMAD AMEEN‑‑Petitioner
versus
Mst. BILQEES BEGUM and another‑‑Respondents
Civil .Petition No.295 of 1988, decided on 29th May, 1988.
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 2‑4‑1988 in W.P.No.721‑F/BWP).
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)‑‑
‑‑‑S.10‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑Dower‑‑Dispute about amount of dower fixed at time of Nikah‑‑Overwritings on entry in Register of Nikahkhawan‑‑Whether made bona fide while correcting a wrong entry at the time of Nikah by Nikahkhawan himself or a subsequent forgery‑‑Petitioner withholding his copy of Nikahnama‑ Explanation offered for not producing same found unconvincing‑ Inference drawn that if there was a genuine unchanged entry therein at the time of Nikah there was no reason for petitioner not to have produced his own copy‑‑All controversial questions having been settled by findings of fact, petition had no merit and dismissed.
Mian Ataur Rehman, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 29th May, 1988,
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J. ‑‑The petitioner has, through this petition for leave to appeal, called in question the judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby his writ petition arising out of a dower decree in favour of respondent, was dismissed. The question whether the dower fixed at the time of Nikah was only Rs.32.6 annas or Rs.50,000 arose on account of overwritings on the dower entry in the register of Nikahkhawan. The respondent's plea was that a wrong entry was corrected at the time of the Nikah by Nikahkhawan himself. The petitioner's plea was that it was a subsequent forgery. The Nikahkhawan was also examined who tried to please both the parties. All these controversial questions were settled by findings of fact. In the impugned judgment all the salient features on this aspect of the case have been considered and a particular mention has been made o the fact that the petitioner withheld his part/copy of the Nikahnama. If there was a genuine unchanged entry of Rs.32.6 annas at the time of Nikah there was no reason for him not to have produced his own copy. The explanation offered on behalf of the petitioner in this respect is unconvincing. We find no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.
M.I./M‑583/S Petition dismissed