Find a Lawyer

MST. GHANIA HASSAN versus SHAHID HUSSAIN SHAHID

XXX0 XXXVII, Rr 2 and 3 - Summary Suit ution Execution Request - Objection - Extra Dover - Scope - Applicant's Attachment Applicant's position was that it was the decision maker and the property in question. Married (attached) property was granted against Dover. The execution court rejected the request for a stay - no concept of additional Dover was allegedly found in the matter of Dover almost four years after the marriage. - Spouses may exchange gifts during their married life, but such gifted property can be used as a "die Professional "status may be. - The judge's petitioner did not transfer the property in favor of the applicant at the end ~ The applicant filed a lawsuit to recover his door and she could not claim the final result. Any such entitlement to such property was terminated under the circumstances [pp. 44, 45] A, B, C, D and E.

PLD 2017 Lahore 41

Before Ibad-ur-Rehman Lodhi, J

Mst. GHANIA HASSAN—Appellant

versus

SHAHID HUSSAIN SHAHID and another—Respondents

F.A.O. No. 159 of 2010, heard on 19th February, 2016.

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---

—0. XXXVII, Rr. 2 & 3—Summary suit—Execution petition— Objection—Additional dower—Scope—Executing Court attached property of judgment-debtor—Contention of applicant was that she had entered into marriage with the judgment-debtor and property in question (attached property) had been given to her against dower Objection petition was dismissed by the Executing Court—Validity—-No concept of additional dower existed—Dower in question was allegedly settled after almost four years of the marriage—Spouses could exchange gifts during their matrimonial life but such gifted property could riot be given the status of "dower”—Judgment-debtor had not finally transferred the property in question in favour of applicant . Applicant had filed a suit for recovery of her dower and till its final conclusion she could not claim to be having any lien over such property—Applicant could not frustrate the proceedings of execution of decree granted in favour of respondent—Appeal was dismissed in circumstances. [pp. 44, 45] A, B, C, D & E

Ashiq Ali and others v. Mst. Zamir Fatima and others PLD 2004 SC 10; Mst. Tahira Begum v. Federal Land Commission, Islamabad and 5 others 1983 CLC 663; Wali Dad v. Mst. Tasneem Kausar and another 1999 CLC 163 and Inayat Ullah v. Mst. Parveen Akhtar 1989 SCMR 1871 ref.

(b) Islamic law—

—'Dower*—Meaning—Dower was a consideration on the basis of which a Muslim man and. woman entered into a marriage contract, [p. 44] A

(c) Islamic law—

— "Dower”—Additional dower—Exchange of gifts during matrimonial life between spouses could not be given status of "downer”/Additional dower. [p. 44] A

Syed Riaz-ul-Hassan Gilani for Appellant.

Syed Muhammad Ali Gillani for Respondent No.1.

Date of hearing: 19th February, 2016.

immigration advocate from Kohistan lawyer