Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMADAMIN VS Respondent: BALQEES BEGUM.Honorable Justice Muhammad Afzal Zullah
1988 S C M R 1379
1988 S C M R 1379
Present: Muhammad Afza1 Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
MUHAMMAD AMIN‑‑Petitioner
versus
Mst. BALQEES BEGUM and another‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition No.295 of 1988, decided on 24th May, 1988.
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 2‑4‑1988 in Writ Petition No.721‑F/BWP).
West Pakistan Family Court Act (XXXV of 1964)‑‑
‑‑‑S.5‑‑Dower decree‑‑Question whether dower fixed at the time of Nikah was only Rs.32.6 annas or Rs.50,000 arose on account of over writings on the dower entry in Register of Nikah Khawan‑‑Lady's plea was that a wrong entry was corrected at the time of the Nikah by Nikah Khawan himself‑‑Nikah Khawan was examined and he tried to please both the parties‑‑Such controverted questions were settled by findings of fact and all the salient features on this aspect of case had been considered in the impugned judgment and a particular mention had been made of the fact that the petitioner (husband) 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 husband not to have produced his own copy‑‑Explanation of petitioner (husband; in that behalf was unconvincing‑‑Supreme Court declined interference.
Mian Ataur Rehman Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 24th 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 Nikah Khawan. The respondent's plea was that a wrong entry was corrected at the time of the Nikah by Nikah Khawan himself. The petitioner's plea was that it was a subsequent forgery. The Nikah Khawan 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 of 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.B.A./M‑466/S Petition dismissed.