Amanullah V. Sadia Shah and others,
CLC 2017 35 · Balochistan High Court
This case was about a family dispute over dower (money or property promised to a wife at marriage) and maintenance after divorce. A wife, Sadia Shah, sued her husband, Amanullah, for unpaid dower of Rs. 500,000 and for maintenance for herself and their children. The husband argued he had already paid the dower by transferring a property to her name instead of cash.
The trial court agreed with the husband, finding he had proven the dower was paid through the property transfer, and limited the wife's maintenance to her iddat period (the waiting period after divorce). On appeal, the District Judge reversed this, ruling the husband still owed the dower money and that the daughter should get maintenance until she reached adulthood rather than until marriage.
The Balochistan High Court reviewed both rulings together. It found that the wife herself had admitted during cross-examination that the property was transferred to her, and this was also recorded in the divorce deed. The appellate court had wrongly dismissed this evidence just because the divorce deed itself wasn't formally presented in court, even though both sides agreed it existed and its contents were undisputed. The High Court restored the trial court's decision that the dower had already been paid through the property.
However, it corrected the appellate court on one point: the daughter's maintenance should continue until she gets married, not just until she turns 18, following Islamic family law principles. This case clarifies that undisputed facts don't need formal re-proving and reaffirms daughters' maintenance rights extending to marriage.
یہ مقدمہ ایک خاندانی تنازع سے متعلق تھا جو طلاق کے بعد حق مہر (وہ رقم یا جائیداد جو نکاح کے وقت بیوی کو دینے کا وعدہ کیا جاتا ہے) اور نان نفقہ کے معاملے پر مبنی تھا۔ بیوی، سعدیہ شاہ، نے اپنے شوہر امان اللہ کے خلاف پانچ لاکھ روپے کے غیر ادا شدہ حق مہر اور اپنے اور اپنے بچوں کے نان نفقہ کے لیے دعویٰ دائر کیا۔ شوہر کا موقف تھا کہ وہ حق مہر پہلے ہی ادا کر چکا ہے کیونکہ اس نے نقد رقم کے بجائے ایک جائیداد بیوی کے نام منتقل کر دی تھی۔
ٹرائل کورٹ نے شوہر کے موقف سے اتفاق کیا اور یہ قرار دیا کہ وہ جائیداد کی منتقلی کے ذریعے حق مہر کی ادائیگی ثابت کر چکا ہے، چنانچہ بیوی کا نان نفقہ صرف عدت کی مدت تک محدود کر دیا گیا۔ اپیل پر ڈسٹرکٹ جج نے اس فیصلے کو کالعدم قرار دیتے ہوئے فیصلہ دیا کہ شوہر پر اب بھی حق مہر کی رقم واجب الادا ہے، اور یہ کہ بیٹی کو شادی تک کے بجائے بالغ ہونے تک نان نف