📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case involved a wife who had filed a family court suit against her husband seeking dissolution of marriage, dower, maintenance, dowry articles, and a sum of money. The Family Court partially ruled in her favor, granting dissolution of marriage through khula (in lieu of unpaid dower) along with maintenance during the iddat period, but rejected her claims for dowry articles and Rs. 50,000 she said she had given her husband. Her appeal against this partial decision was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, prompting her to file a writ petition before the Peshawar High Court.
The High Court also dismissed her petition. It found that she had failed to provide convincing evidence for her remaining claims. Regarding the dowry articles, she only submitted a typed list prepared on the day she filed the suit, with no receipts or supporting witnesses to verify it was genuine. Regarding the Rs. 50,000, she could not show any evidence of when or where she gave this money to her husband. The court held that mere unsubstantiated statements are not sufficient proof in law.
Since both lower courts had reached the same conclusions based on proper evaluation of evidence, and no legal error was found, the High Court held there was no basis to interfere. This case illustrates that in family law disputes, claims for dowry items or money must be backed by solid, verifiable evidence such as receipts or witness testimony, not just personal assertions or self-prepared lists.
یہ مقدمہ ایک ایسی بیوی سے متعلق ہے جس نے اپنے شوہر کے خلاف فیملی کورٹ میں دعویٰ دائر کیا تھا جس میں تحلیل نکاح، حق مہر، نان نفقہ، جہیز کا سامان، اور ایک مخصوص رقم کا مطالبہ کیا گیا تھا۔ فیملی کورٹ نے جزوی طور پر اس کے حق میں فیصلہ دیا، یعنی غیر ادا شدہ حق مہر کے عوض خلع کی بنیاد پر نکاح تحلیل کر دیا اور ایام عدت کے نان نفقہ کی بھی اجازت دی، تاہم جہیز کے سامان اور پچاس ہزار روپے کے اس دعوے کو مسترد کر دیا جو بقول اس کے اس نے اپنے شوہر کو دیے تھے۔ اس جزوی فیصلے کے خلاف اس کی اپیل ایڈیشنل ڈسٹرکٹ جج نے خارج کر دی، جس پر اس نے پشاور ہائی کورٹ میں رٹ پٹیشن دائر کی۔
ہائی کورٹ نے بھی اس کی درخواست خارج کر دی۔ عدالت نے پایا کہ وہ اپنے باقی ماندہ دعووں کے لیے قابل اعتماد شہادت پیش کرنے میں ناکام رہی۔ جہیز کے سامان کے بارے میں اس نے صرف ایک ٹائپ شدہ فہرست پیش کی جو دعویٰ دائر کرنے کے دن تیار
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
Present : Lal Jan Khattak , J. Mst . RAHAT YASMEEN--Petitioner versus ALAM KHAN and 2 others--Respondents W.P. No. 3467-P of 2015, decided on 28.11.2016. Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 (VIII of 1961)-- ----Ss. 8, 9 & 10--Constitution of Pakistan , 1973, Art. 199--Suit for dissolution of marriage, dowry articles & maintenance filed by wife, partially decreed by Family Court--Dismissal of Appeal by District Judge--Concurrent findings of fact--Challenge to--Maintainability--Held that wife in support of her case appeared as witness before family Court but could not produce any worthy reliable and confidence aspiring evidence, which could support her claim relating to dowry articles--Wife produced a list showing dowry articles but said list cannot be relied upon for safe administration of justice for its being only a typed document having been prepared on day when suit was instituted--Wife neither produced any receipt qua items mentioned in list as her dowry nor any person appeared in her support to corroborate her version, list declared to be of no legal worth--Further held that wife had also failed in proving that certain amount was given by her to respondent--Wife could not produce any evidence to show that when and where when she had given amount to respondent--Petition dismissed. [P. 105] A & B Mr. Amanullah , Advocate for Petitioner. Respondent has already been ex-parte. Date of hearing: 28.11.2016. Judgment This writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 07.07.2015 of the learned Additional District Judge-VII, Peshawar , whereby the petitioner’s appeal, against the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2014 of the learned Judge, Family Court-III, Peshawar , has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a family suit against the Respondent No. 1 for recovery of dower, maintenance, dowry articles, money and dissolution of marriage. The suit was contested by the respondent by filing his written statement, wherein, he refuted the petitioner’s claim. On the case issue, parties adduced their respective evidence, whereafter the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 17.03.2014 only decreed the prayer for dissolution of marriage on the basis of khula in lieu of the unpaid dower coupled with maintenance to the petitioner from dissolution of marriage till the period of Iddat . Rests of the petitioner’s claims were dismissed who then impugned the partial decree in appeal which was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court, hence, the instant writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner only argued the petitioner’s case qua dismissal of her claim as to dowry articles and the amount of Rs.50,000/-. It is pertinent to mention that the respondent has been placed ex- parte by this Court vide order dated 09.09.2016.
4. Arguments heard and record gone through.
5. Perusal of the record would show that petitioner in support of her case appeared before the learned Family Court as PW-2 but she could not produce any worth reliable and confidence inspiring evidence which could support her claim relating to the dowry articles. No doubt, she produced a list Ex.PW 2/2 showing the articles mentioned therein as her dowry but said list cannot be relied upon for safe administration of justice for its being only a simple typed document having been prepared on the day when the suit was instituted. Petitioner neither produced any receipt qua the items mentioned in the list as her dowry nor any person appeared in her support to corroborate her version, therefore, the list is of no legal worth.
6. So far as the issue relating to the amount of Rs.50 ,000 /- is concerned, suffice it to say that the petitioner has also failed in proving that the said amount was given by her to the respondent. She could not produce any evidence to show that when and where she had given the ibid amount to the respondent. On record of the case, there is no convincing material from which this Court could come to a conclusion that the petitioner had given the amount of Rs.50,000/- to the Respondent No. 1. Mere an unsubstantiated statement would not be enough to hold the petitioner entitled to her ibid claim unless same is proved strictly in accordance with law which is not the case in hand.
7. Both the Courts below have correctly appreciated and scrutinized the case evidence and rightly dismissed the petitioner’s ibid claims. While arriving at the concurrent findings the Courts below, have not committed any such illegality which could attract the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
8. For what has been discussed above, the instant writ petition, being bereft of any merit, is hereby dismissed. (Z.I.S.) Petition dismissed