Section 17, 5 and the suit for the recovery of SH Dwyer and Bridal Gifts (Prohibition) Rules, 1976, R3 Law Martyrs (10 of 1984), Article 199 Constitution Petition Dover were finally enforced against the husband. The husband (applicant) was that the list of articles on dowry was made and she was not ready for marriage and that the price of gold jewelry under Rule 3 (1) of the dowry and bridal gifts (1976). It was ordered to be returned at a later rate when it was said that when articles were purchased, it was of no use to the legitimate husband's dowry and relying on the bridal gift (ban) rolls 1976 because the husband was dowry. Could not be allowed to pay for articles in. The dowry and bridegroom's gift (restriction) rules existed in Rule 3 (1) of 1976, when a crime was committed, it was to find out the value of the dowry articles. On the approval of the final decree, there was a promise to pay a replacement in return for the articles, after finding out that the implementing court had affirmed that the provisions of the Convention of Martyrdom, 1984, proceedings. The Family Court did not apply under Section 17 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 and the exclusion of such provisions immediately prompted the technical court of law to ensure the priority of justice and litigation with the technical ability of the law. Just released. After the wife proved her case, her family court did not relinquish her obligation to measure the weight and learn about its evidence and quality, the constitutional application was dismissed. \ r \ n
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
