Summary: Background: The appellant filed four suits against the respondents in the Family Court, Muzaffarabad: For payment of dower of Rs. 4,25,525/-. For past and future maintenance allowance at Rs. 12,000/- per month. For dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty, non-performance of marital obligations, non-payment of dower, and maintenance allowance. For recovery of dowry articles or their value, Rs. 1,53,300/-. The respondent also filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court consolidated all suits and ruled in favor of the appellant. The respondents appealed to the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court, which modified the Family Court's decrees, granting maintenance allowance only for the Iddat period, dissolving the marriage in lieu of Khula for Rs. 100,000/-, and modifying the decree for dowry articles. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir. ----Issues: 1- Whether the dissolution of marriage should be based on cruelty or Khula. 2- Whether the appellant is entitled to past and future maintenance allowance. 3- Whether the dowry articles decree was correctly issued. 4- Whether the deferred dower of Rs. 3,25,525/- should be upheld. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Dissolution of Marriage: The Supreme Court held that the dissolution of marriage was rightly decreed by the Family Court on grounds of cruelty. The High Court's modification to Khula in lieu of Rs. 100,000/- was set aside. Evidence showed the appellant faced cruelty, including mental torture and harassment by the respondent's brother-in-law, which justified the dissolution on cruelty grounds. --Maintenance Allowance: The Supreme Court restored the Family Court's decree of Rs. 2,000/- per month maintenance from the date of the suit until the decision date, including the Iddat period. The appellant proved she was ousted from the respondent’s house and was not maintained. --Dowry Articles: The Supreme Court reinstated the Family Court’s decree for the recovery of dowry articles. The High Court's modification was found unjustified as the appellant proved the dowry articles were given at marriage and were in the respondent's possession. --Deferred Dower: The Supreme Court upheld the Family Court's decision that the appellant was entitled to the deferred dower of Rs. 3,25,525/- as per the marriage contract. ----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Zaheer-ud-Din Babar vs. Mst. Shazia Kausar & others [2015 SCR 621] Mst. Amreen vs. M. Kabir & others [2014 SCR 504] Mst. Iqra vs. Abuzar [2012 SCR 284] Muhammad Sabil Khan and another vs. Saima Inshad [2014 SCR 718] Nazish Shabir vs. Basit Ibal Khan & another [2015 SCR 400] Khalid Mahmood vs. Parveen Akhtar & another [2015 SCR 512] Muhammad Rafique vs. Mst. Gul Taj [2006 SCR 260] Syed Iqbal Shah vs. Syeda Tahira Bibi & others [2019 SCR 295]

Summary: ----S. 5, Sched, & S.18. ---Maintenance for minor and wife---Appearance through agent before Family Court---Effect---Concealment of source of income by husband---Effect---Suit for recovery of dower articles and maintenance of wife and minor was decreed concurrently---Contention of petitioner / husband, inter alia, was that impugned orders did not take into account that the husband/petitioner no longer had any source of income and furthermore that wife had not personally appeared before Family Court to substantiate her contentions---Validity---Evidence showed that husband/petitioner had concealed his sources of income and there existed contradictions on behalf of petitioner and his father, who was a witness, regarding his sources of income---Husband, if he fails to disclose his salary, or financial earnings, then adverse inference was to be drawn against him---No bar existed in wife being represented before Family Court by her authorized agent, therefore contention that wife did not appear before Family Court to substantiate her contentions was not tenable since her appearance was made through her authorized agent, who was her father---No illegality existed in impugned order---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Muhammad Asim v. Mst. Samro Begum and others PLD 2018 SC 819 and Qalandri Bibi v. Mst. Irum Bibi and others 2019 YLR 86 rel. ----- Background: The petitioner and respondent No.1 were married on June 22, 2017, but their relationship deteriorated, leading to multiple legal suits. Respondent No.1 filed a suit for maintenance allowance and recovery of dowry articles worth Rs.12,48,000 on February 28, 2018. She later gave birth to respondent No.2, Ghulam Ahmad, on May 9, 2018, and filed another suit on September 1, 2018, seeking maintenance allowance for the child and delivery expenses. The trial court partially decreed both suits on September 26, 2019, granting maintenance for the iddat period, child support, and some dowry articles or their alternate price. Both parties appealed, and the appellate court modified the decision on November 28, 2019. ----- Issues: 1). Whether the dowry articles claimed by respondent No.1 were correctly assessed. --- 2). Whether the maintenance allowance for respondent No.1 and the minor (respondent No.2) was appropriate, given the petitioner's financial status. ---3). Whether the petitioner was liable to pay delivery expenses. ----4). Whether the admissibility of the dowry list was questionable due to procedural concerns. ---- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court dismissed the petition, upholding the decisions of both the trial court and appellate court. The court found that the petitioner failed to provide evidence of his financial status, thus drawing adverse inferences against him as per precedent. It was also noted that respondent No.1 had the right to be represented by an agent, being a pardah nashin woman, and her failure to personally appear in court did not undermine her claims. The court rejected the petitioner's argument that the dowry list was improperly considered and found that the appellate court rightly modified the maintenance and dowry claims. ----- Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Asim v. Mst. Samro Begum and others (PLD 2018 SC 819): Adverse inference drawn against the husband for failing to disclose financial information. Qalandri Bibi v. Mst. Irum Bibi and others (2019 YLR 86): Right of pardah nashin women to be represented by an authorized agent under Section 18 of the Family Courts Act, 1964.

Summary: (a) Divorce and Dissolution of Marriage: The key issue in this case is the validity of the alleged divorce pronounced by the petitioner. Respondent No.1 claimed that the petitioner pronounced a single divorce on 17.08.2014 during a telephonic conversation, which was also communicated to her mother. However, the petitioner denied this assertion, maintaining that no divorce had taken place and that the marriage remained intact. The learned Family Court and Appellate Court did not frame an explicit issue regarding the pronouncement of divorce or make a determination on whether the marriage had been dissolved. The Court emphasized the importance of resolving this issue, as the entitlement to maintenance during the iddat period and the deferred dower depends on the dissolution of marriage (citing Mst. Kaneez Fatima v. Wali Muhammad (PLD 1998 SC 901)). The failure to establish the dissolution of the marriage resulted in an error of law regarding the entitlement to maintenance and deferred dower. (b) Maintenance and Dower: The Court examined the entitlement of the respondent to maintenance and deferred dower. In the absence of a clear determination regarding the dissolution of marriage, the Court held that the entitlement to deferred dower and maintenance for the iddat period could not be granted. As per Saadia Usman v. Muhammad Usman Iqbal Jadoon (2009 SCMR 1458), deferred dower becomes payable only upon the dissolution of the marriage. Additionally, the failure to issue a divorce notice under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, compounded the issue. (c) Dowry Articles and Minors' Maintenance: The petitioner contested the decree concerning the recovery of dowry articles, specifically gold ornaments. During cross-examination, the petitioner acknowledged possession of certain dowry items, confirming the findings of the learned Family Court regarding their entitlement. Regarding the maintenance for minors, the Court held that the awarded amount of Rs. 5,000 per month per minor was not excessive, as it was a reasonable amount in light of the needs of growing children. ----Disposition: The petition is partially accepted. The judgments and decrees of the learned Family Court and the learned District Judge (East) are set aside concerning the maintenance for the iddat period and deferred dower. The matter is remanded to the learned Family Court for a fresh decision on the issue of whether the petitioner had divorced respondent No.1 on 17.08.2014. The learned Family Court is directed to reconsider issues related to maintenance and deferred dower based on this new finding. The remaining aspects of the petition are dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Summary: (a) Islamic-law-------Marriages---Irregular marriage---When a lady entered into marriage before completion ofiddat period, then said marriage would not be a "void marriage" but would be an irregularmarriage---Such union, which was an "irregular marriage", could not be regarded as beingagainst Sharia.Allah Dad v. Mukhtar Ahmed 1992 SCMR 1273 rel.(b) Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)-------Ss. 373 & 372---Succession Certificate---Nature of proceedings under Ss.373 & 372 ofSuccession Act, 1925---Dispute between legal heirs and intricate questions of facts,determination of---Scope---Procedure provided for in S.373 of Succession Act, 1925 was ofa summary nature and did not decide rights of parties---For determination of rights as legalheirs, remedy lay before a court of competent jurisdiction---Intricate questions of fact couldnot be resolved in such summary proceedings, and questions as to title of property had to bedecided before a civil court.

Summary: (a) Muslim Family Laws: ----Maintenance allowance---Past maintenance---Husband’s obligation---Khula. A husband is obligated to maintain his wife so long as she has not voluntarily abandoned the matrimonial home without reasonable cause. Where the wife proves that she was forced to leave due to cruelty, she is entitled to past maintenance. Cruelty includes both physical violence and mental anguish caused by the husband or the household environment. In the present case, concurrent findings of fact established that the wife was subjected to cruelty and neglect, entitling her to maintenance until the expiry of the iddat period. -----Cited Cases: Muhammad Nawaz v. Mst. Noor-un-Nisa (PLD 1972 SC 302) Bibi Mussarat v. Muhammad Nasir (1990 CLC 1908) Liaqat Ali v. Additional District Judge (2000 YLR 2084 Lahore) (b) Dowry Articles: ----Recovery of dowry articles---Evidence---Cross-examination. The wife’s attorney was subjected to detailed cross-examination; however, the list of dowry articles (Exh.P.4) remained unchallenged and unrebutted during trial. Failure to cross-examine on a specific document ensures its authenticity. The courts below rightly directed the husband to return the dowry articles mentioned in the judgment. (c) Cruelty: ----Definition and scope---Mental and physical cruelty---Husband’s conduct. Cruelty under Islamic law includes not just physical violence but also mental torture, hateful conduct, and an environment that forces the wife to leave her husband’s house. Conduct causing anguish, distress, or humiliation justifies a wife’s decision to abandon the house and still claim maintenance. ----Definition (Black’s Law Dictionary): Mental cruelty: Conduct that endangers the life, physical, or mental health of a spouse. Physical cruelty: Actual personal violence or conduct justifying divorce. (d) Concurrent Findings of Fact: ----Scope of judicial review---High Court’s interference---Evidence. Where concurrent findings of fact by the Family Court and the Appellate Court are based on evidence and are not shown to suffer from misreading or non-reading of evidence, the High Court cannot interfere under its constitutional jurisdiction. (e) Past Maintenance after Khula: ----Legal obligation of husband---Past maintenance entitlement---No ex gratia grant. A wife is entitled to past maintenance even after obtaining dissolution of marriage through khula. Maintenance is a legal obligation of the husband and not an act of discretion or generosity. Result: Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

Summary: (a) Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939: ----S. 2(ii)---Dissolution of marriage---Grounds for khula and cruelty---Adjustment of dowry articles against khula consideration---Scope and validity. The appellant filed a suit for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and non-payment of maintenance allowance. The Family Court decreed the suit based on these grounds, but the Shariat Court modified the judgment, dissolving the marriage on the ground of khula against the consideration of dowry articles. Held, khula is permissible when a wife seeks dissolution without valid grounds. However, in cases where cruelty or non-payment of maintenance is alleged and proven, dissolving the marriage solely on the ground of khula is questionable. Additionally, dowry articles cannot substitute maintenance allowance, as maintenance is a distinct right of the wife and a duty of the husband. The adjustment of dowry articles against khula consideration was deemed valid only because the value of dowry articles and gold ornaments (claimed as dower) was found to be equivalent. The appellant retains the option to reclaim dowry articles by returning the gold ornaments. (b) Family Law---Maintenance allowance---Entitlement and enforceability: A suit for maintenance allowance decreed by the Family Court remained intact as the respondent did not challenge this decree before the Shariat Court. Maintenance is an independent right of the wife and cannot be adjusted against khula consideration. The appellant is entitled to maintenance allowance as determined by the trial court until the expiry of the iddat period. ----Cited Cases: Mushtaq Hussain v. Province of Punjab through Collector Jehlum and 6 others [2003 MLD 109] Nishan Ali v. Sher Muhammad and 3 others [2004 MLD 1909] Zafar Ahmed Ansari v. Auqaf Department through Chief Administrator, Punjab, Lahore and 4 others [1996 CLC 892] ----Disposition: Appeal disposed of. Marriage dissolved on the basis of khula with consideration of dowry articles; maintenance allowance awarded until the expiry of the iddat period remains intact.

Summary: -----1. Maintenance of Children: A Father's Legal and Religious Obligation: (Relevant Precedents: PLD 2015 Lahore 698, 2015 MLD 11, 2014 YLR 781) -----2. Obligation to Maintain: A father is legally and religiously obligated to maintain his children regardless of their place of residence. Sons must be maintained until they attain the age of majority (18 years), while daughters are entitled to maintenance until they are married. This duty includes ensuring a reasonable standard of living in light of prevailing economic circumstances. -----3. Maintenance of Divorced Wife During Iddat Period: Obligation Until Iddat: A husband is obligated to maintain his wife until the completion of the iddat period following the pronouncement of divorce. This duty is independent of the financial status of the wife. -----4. Quantum of Maintenance: --Factors Considered: --Maintenance amounts are determined based on: The financial capacity of the father. Prevailing economic conditions. The standard of living reasonably expected for the children and their needs. Courts must balance the financial means of the father against the reasonable needs of the child. -----5. Ex-Parte Proceedings in Family Matters: --Ex-Parte Decision Validity: Family Courts can proceed ex-parte against a party that fails to appear despite notice. A father’s failure to contest a maintenance suit or present evidence cannot invalidate an ex-parte judgment. -----6. Interference with Family Court's Decision: --Appellate Jurisdiction Limitations: An appellate court should refrain from interfering with maintenance orders unless the quantum is demonstrably excessive, unsupported by evidence, or manifestly unjust. Reduction of maintenance by the appellate court without sufficient grounds may be overturned. ----7. Disposition: Writ Petition No.269/2017 (Father’s Petition): Dismissed. The petitioner (father) failed to demonstrate that the maintenance ordered was excessive or unjustified.

Summary: Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--------S.5 & Sched.---Limitation Act ( IX of 1908), Art. 120---Suit for recovery of maintenanceallowance of minors---Past maintenance allowance---Limitation---Claiming maintenanceallowance for iddat period marriage was dissolved amicably--- Scope--- Petitioners/plaintiff's(wife) contended that Family Court had rightly decreed past-maintenance allowance for theperiod of around a decade since their expulsion from the house of the Respondent/defendant(husband)--- Respondent (husband) contended that maintenance allowance could not be grantedfor more than 6 years' time---Validity---Admittedly, the petitioners were living apart from therespondent since 2002 and during the said period the respondent had failed to pay a single pennyto the petitioners, therefore, the Family Court had rightly held entitled for future maintenanceallowance---Family Court had fell into error in determining the past maintenance from the year2002 the time when the minors remained apart from the father and intervening period fromexpulsion to the date of institution of suit in the year 2012---Findings of Family Court about pastmaintenance, in circumstances, was contrary to law----High Court modified the impugnedjudgment and decree and allowed the petitioners past maintenance allowance of 6 years from thedate of their expulsion---Appellate Court had rightly reduced the future maintenance allowanceof minors from Rs.5000/- to Rs.3000/- each keeping in view the facts and circumstance of thecase---Appellate Court had rightly found that mother of minors was divorced since ten yearsbefore and the matter was patched up and in such like situation, it could not be believed thatmaintenance of iddat period of a divorcee was still unpaid---High Court, in circumstances,modified the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court---Constitutionalpetition was disposed of accordingly.

Summary: -----1. Jurisdiction of Family Courts: Exclusive Authority in Matrimonial and Related Matters: --Statutory Framework: Section 17(1) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, excludes the applicability of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in proceedings before Family Courts. Family Courts are empowered to adjudicate claims of dower, maintenance, dowry, and related matrimonial disputes. -----2. Deferred Dower: Proof and Recovery: --Dower Obligation: As per the Nikahnama, Rs.50,000 was fixed as dower, of which Rs.25,000 was paid in the form of jewelry at the time of marriage, leaving Rs.25,000 as deferred dower. The petitioner failed to provide evidence of payment of the deferred dower, and thus, the Family Court and appellate court rightly decreed the amount in favor of respondent No.1. -----3. Maintenance for Wife and Daughter: --Entitlement of Maintenance: A husband is obligated to maintain his wife until the expiry of the iddat period and his children until they attain financial independence (in the case of a daughter, until marriage). --In this case: For Wife: Respondent No.1 was awarded maintenance of Rs.8,000 per month during the iddat period only, as she had initiated separation by exercising her delegated right to divorce. --For Daughter: The husband's financial obligation towards his daughter remains until she becomes self-sufficient or gets married. -----4. Recovery of Dowry and Bari Articles: --Evidentiary Standards: Family Courts consider documentary evidence such as receipts and photographic evidence for dowry and bari articles. In this case, respondent No.1 produced receipts and wedding photographs substantiating her claim for certain gold ornaments and articles. The courts awarded only the items she could prove through evidence. -----5. Concurrent Findings of Fact: --Non-Interference by High Court: The Family Court and appellate court’s findings are concurrent on facts and supported by evidence. The High Court refrains from reappraising evidence in its constitutional jurisdiction unless findings are perverse, suffer from misreading/non-reading of evidence, or jurisdictional infirmities exist. -----6. Evidence Admissibility in Family Courts: --Relaxed Rules of Evidence: Family Courts are not bound by strict rules of evidence under the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Oral evidence, affidavits, and marked documents can be relied upon unless credibly challenged. -----7. Writ Petition Dismissed: The High Court found no jurisdictional infirmity in the judgments of the Family Court or appellate court. The concurrent findings were based on a proper appreciation of evidence, and no misreading or non-reading of evidence was identified. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Summary: Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)-------S. 5 & Sched.---Family Courts Rules, 1965, R. 4---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VI, Rr. 14 & 15---Suit for dissolution of marriage, recovery of dowry articles, dower andmaintenance---Allegation of cruelty---Scope---Dower amount still outstanding---Nonaffixation of thumb impression or signature of the plaintiff on the plaint and affidavit---Effect---Petitioner (husband) contended that earlier arbitrator was appointed who decided that dowryarticles in possession of either party would deem to be property of respective party and that therespondent (wife) had failed to prove that dower amount was outstanding---Petitioner objectedthat signature or thumb impression was not affixed by the respondent on the plaint and affidavit,thus her claim was liable to be dismissed---Respondent contended that two courts below hadrightly passed judgment and decree in her favour---Validity---Petitioner was mainly aggrievedfrom the judgment and decree to the extent of dower amount, dowry articles and maintenanceallowance---Question before High Court was whether respondent was entitled for doweramount, dowry articles and maintenance allowance since her departure from the house ofpetitioner---Held, as far as objection of the petitioner regarding maintainability of the suit withregard to non-affixation of thumb impression of the plaintiff on the plaint and affidavit wasconcerned, though in cross-examination respondent had admitted that she had not affixedthumb impression on the plaint and affidavit but in this regard the language of R. 4 of FamilyCourts Rules, 1965, requiring the signing, verification and presentation of the plaint wasidentical to the provisions of Rr.14 & 15 of O. VI, C.P.C.---Any omission or irregularity in thesigning and verification of the pleadings, and presentation of the plaint was rectifiable at asubsequent stage---Plaint could not be rejected and a suit could not be dismissed for any of theirregularities in performing certain acts---Omission or mistake to sign the pleadings was merelyan irregularity and could be cured/rectified subsequently at any stage---No dispute existedbetween the parties in respect of fixation of dower of Rs. 4,80,000/- at the time of marriage,because in the statement of petitioner before the Trial Court and one of his witnesses hadspecifically stated that Haq Meharwas fixed Rs. 4,80,000/- and also maintained the same duringcross-examination, so the findings of courts below regarding dower amount were in accordancewith law---Plaintiff though had failed to place on record any list or receipt of dowry articlesbut the petitioner during cross-examination had admitted certain dowry articles which werebrought by the respondent at the time of marriage so the findings of the courts below were inaccordance with law---Respondent wife had alleged cruelty and also urged that she wasexpelled by the defendant from his house in her own wear and since then she was residing withher parents---Two witnesses fully supported the statement of respondent, she thereforeestablished the cruelty on the part of her husband---Cruelty was not limited to physical beatingrather that could be either mental or even by conduct, so, when wife was abused, misbehavedand disrespected that was also "cruelty" and on the basis thereof she might refuse to live withher husband and was entitled to the maintenance allowance---Plea of husband that she left thehouse of her own was not understandable as how a wife having one child could adopt such anirresponsible behavior---Muslim wife was entitled to get maintenance as of right from herhusband---Plaintiff had attained the status of wife more than a decade ago before filing the suit---Divorce effected by Khula operated as a release did not effect the liability of husband tomaintain the wife during her Iddat---Even if Rukhsati had not taken place the wife was entitledto have maintenance from her husband during subsistence of marriage---No illegality orirregularity having been found by the High Court in the impugned judgments, constitutionalpetition was dismissed accordingly.