Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No.4804 of 1986, decided on 28th March, 1987.

--S.5--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199--Dower money-- Enhancement--Respondent husband categorically denying execution of alleged agreement whereby he allegedly enhanced amount of dower money--Very text of agreement demonstrating that it was a motivated document--Statement of petitioner about execution of agreement contradictory--Misreading of evidence, alleged in petition, not established by petitioner--Findings of Appellate Court below against petitioner borne out and substantiated from evidence on record and based on cogent reasons--Interference declined in constitutional jurisdiction in circumstances.

Agha Taj Muhammad for Petitioner.

Date of hearing: 28th March, 1987.

This petition calls in question on the ground of misreading of evidence, order, dated 7-4-1986, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat in Civil Appeal No.31, dated 13-2-1986.

2. The facts as stated in the petition, briefly, are that petitioner was married to respondent No.1, in year 1974, according to Islamic tenets, and a sum of Rs.32.50 was fixed as the dower amount. Later on, vide agreement dated 6-4-1976, the dower amount was enhanced to Rs.10,000. Subsequently, petitioner was divorced by respondent No-1 on 27-3-1983. Thereafter, petitioner instituted a suit for recovery of dower amount of Rs.10, 000 based upon the above referred agreement dated 6-4-1976, in the Civil Courts at Kharian, District Gujrat, which was decreed in favour of petitioner, vide judgment and order dated 12-1-1986. This was appealed against, and the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat, was pleased to accept the appeal vide impugned order, the decree and judgment of the learned Civil Judge Kharian was set aside and the findings were reversed. Hence this petition.

3. I have perused the plaint, the reply/written statement filed by respondent No.1, and have gone through the entire evidence led by the parties, before the learned trial Court as well as the judgments passed by the two Courts below.

4. I convincingly find myself in agreement with the findings of the learned Additional District Judge, which are based on cogent reasons, on the basis of the evidence led by the parties. I asked few questions to the learned counsel for petitioner as to the evidence led by the parties. For instance, as to why Fateh Muhammad PW.3. who is a marginal witness and not related to the parties, retained for 8 years the alleged agreement dated 6-4-1976, which was the basis of the entire litigation as stated by petitioner, PW.5. No convincing answer has been advanced.

5. I also drew his attention to PW.-1 Zahoor Muhammad, the alleged author of the alleged agreement, who states that he did not know the parties nor he asked for their I.D. cards nor did he enter the document in question in the Register maintained by him in this connection. It is further a matter of concern to note, that PW.4 Muhammad Hussain, who is father of petitioner, says with particularity that respondent No.1 only signed the alleged agreement and wrote nothing else on it. I have noticed the alleged document, at the bottom of which it is stated that "I have read the substance of the agreement carefully and found it to be correct." This is a glaring contradiction. It is equally pertinent to mention that respondent No.1, appearing as D.W.1 has categorically denied having purchased the alleged agreement as well as the execution thereof.

6. The alleged agreement in original was before the learned Additional District Judge, who had the advantage of seeing the original, had given a categorical finding of fact that from a perusal of the stamp paper, it is clear that it is a new document and cannot be said to be as ancient as 10 years old, even otherwise, I have read very carefully every word of, the alleged agreement, its very text demonstrates that it is a motivated document and got a voluntary writing.

7. It is equally relevant to mention that petitioner P.W.5, herself has stated that the alleged agreement was executed 8 years ago and the marriage took place ten years ago, whereas in cross-examination she says that the alleged agreement was executed one year after the Nikah. There is an obvious contradiction. Then she goes on saving that she does not know as to where this agreement was executed.

8. No satisfactory answer was advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner to the above questions.

9. I am of the view that this is not a case of misreading of evidence. The findings recorded by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat are fully borne out and substantiated from the evidence on the record. No case of misreading of evidence has been made out. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.

M.Y. H./1-20/L Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.