For the recovery of Section 5, Schedule and Section 14 Dover, the family court dismissed the case for the recovery of the Dowar recovery plaintiff who claimed that Dover was immediately sued in the form of gold jewelry. Was set as She alleged that the defendant had taken away the jewelry when she was forced to leave the house of the plaintiff / her husband, when the three witnesses presented by the plaintiff fully supported the version taken by the plaintiff. According to defendant's testimony, one of Ali's witnesses testified, the gold jewelry was taken away. It was clearly shown that the jewelery was taken away by the trial court, in the circumstances, failing to consider the important aspect of the case and leading to the wrong conclusion. Defendant's testimony was not admissible by the defendant, who was an admission by the defendant, in which case the Andeante did not deny the charge of snatching the gold jewelry and stated that he was obliged to return the gold jewelry. The fact that the gold jewelry was taken away by the defendant, therefore, proved that the Dover wife was entitled and the husband was obliged to pay the family court's judgment and decree. Equally, the Dover amount was set aside to the extent of recovery
Related judgments — Shariat Court Azad Kashmir, 2014
