Summary: Background: The applicants filed a petition for initiation of contempt of court proceedings against the respondents for allegedly violating a Supreme Court judgment dated 17.10.2019 in the case titled "Muhammad Nasar Khan & others vs. Board of Revenue & others (Civil Appeal No.10 of 2019)." The judgment directed the concerned revenue authority to conduct partition proceedings for certain survey numbers and follow statutory provisions to protect the parties' interests. ----Issues: 1- Whether the respondents violated the Supreme Court's judgment by not conducting the partition proceedings as directed. 2- Whether contempt of court proceedings should be initiated against the respondents. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Partition Proceedings: The Court noted that partition proceedings were initiated by the revenue authorities and an order was passed by the Extra Assistant Commissioner on 27.02.2020. However, the applicants filed an appeal, which was decided by the Additional Collector District Poonch on 27.07.2020. The Additional Collector found that a civil suit regarding the disputed survey numbers was pending, and therefore, the partition proceedings could not be concluded until the civil litigation was resolved. --Civil Litigation: The Court highlighted that the pending civil litigation prevented the finalization of partition proceedings. The applicants' counsel failed to satisfactorily address this issue, confirming that the partition process could not proceed until the resolution of the civil suit. --Statutory Provisions: The Court referred to Section 141 of the Land Revenue Act, which stipulates that if a question of title arises during partition proceedings, the issue must be determined by a competent court before partition can proceed. The Court cited a recent judgment reinforcing this principle, stating that without a detailed probe, it cannot be concluded that the respondents willfully disobeyed the Court's order. --Contempt of Court: The Court emphasized that to constitute punishable contempt, there must be clear willful disobedience of the Court's order. In this case, the respondents' actions were in line with statutory requirements, and there was no evidence of willful disobedience. The Court concluded that the respondents did not violate the judgment, and the applicants failed to establish any disobedience. Consequently, the contempt petition was dismissed. ----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Mehrban and another vs. Muhammad Siddique and 2 others (2005 SCR 418) Discusses the need for a detailed probe to determine willful disobedience in contempt cases. Muhammad Javaid Khan vs. Muhammad Nasar Khan (decided on 10.09.2021) Reiterates that partition proceedings cannot be concluded if a question of title is raised and must be resolved by a competent court first. Section 141 of the Land Revenue Act Details the procedure for handling questions of title during partition proceedings. Section 45 of the AJ&K Interim Constitution, 1974 Empowers the Court to punish for contempt of court for disobedience of its orders.

Summary: Background: The appellant filed a civil appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court, which upheld the trial court's decision in favor of the respondent. The respondent had filed a suit for the recovery of dowry articles worth Rs. 116,415/- before the Judge Family Court, Mirpur. The trial court decreed in favor of the respondent for Rs. 89,915/- and dismissed the suit for the remaining Rs. 26,500/-. The appellant contested the judgment, claiming that the dowry list was not proven and that no dowry articles were delivered. Issues: 1- Whether the respondent's claim for recovery of dowry articles was sufficiently proven. 2- Whether the list of dowry articles was valid and credible. 3- Whether the judgments of the lower courts contained any misreading or non-reading of evidence. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Recovery of Dowry Articles: The respondent produced two witnesses and documentary evidence, including a list of dowry articles (Ex.PA). The witnesses corroborated the respondent's claim regarding the dowry articles. The appellant, however, denied the delivery of any dowry articles and claimed that the respondent's father received Rs. 65,000/- instead. The court found that the respondent's evidence was credible and sufficient to prove her claim for dowry articles worth Rs. 89,915/-. The court upheld the judgment awarding Rs. 89,915/- worth of dowry articles to the respondent. --Validity of Dowry List: The appellant argued that the dowry list was fabricated as it was not signed or proven with receipts. However, the court noted that there is no legal requirement for documenting dowry articles in such a manner. The court emphasized that in family matters, particularly dowry claims, the provisions of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, do not strictly apply, as per the AJ&K Family Courts Act, 1993. The respondent was not required to prove her case with the same rigor as in ordinary civil proceedings. The court found the dowry list (Ex.PA) credible and the respondent's evidence sufficient. --Misreading or Non-Reading of Evidence: The court examined the evidence presented and found that both the trial court and the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court had correctly appraised and appreciated the evidence. There was no misreading or non-reading of the record. The court concluded that the judgments of the lower courts were based on proper evaluation of evidence and did not warrant interference. ----Citations/Precedents: Saleem Akbar Kayani v. Dr. Rehana Mansha Kayani & 4 others [2016 SCR 1] Emphasizes the exclusion of Qanun-e-Shahadat and CPC provisions in Family Court proceedings to ensure expeditious resolution of family matters. Muhammad Islam vs. Mst. Rashidah Sultana and 4 others [2013 CLC 698] Highlights the customary practice of not maintaining detailed records or receipts for dowry articles. Muhammad Habib v. Mst. Safia Bibi and others [2008 SCMR 1584] Supports the validity of dowry lists without receipts, recognizing the customary nature of dowry in society. Mst. Shakeela Bibi vs. Muhammad Israr and others [2012 MLD 756] States that the sole testimony of a wife is sufficient to prove her claim for dowry articles in Family Court proceedings. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgments of the lower courts were upheld, confirming the decree for the recovery of dowry articles worth Rs. 89,915/- to the respondent. The appellant's objections regarding the dowry list and the alleged misreading of evidence were rejected.

Summary: Background: The appellant filed a civil appeal against the judgment of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir High Court, which dismissed his appeal concerning three suits filed by the plaintiff-respondent: one for maintenance allowance, one for recovery of dowry articles, and one for recovery of dower. The trial court had decreed in favor of the plaintiff-respondent, awarding her maintenance allowance and decreeing the recovery of dowry articles and dower amount. The appellant challenged this judgment, claiming the dower had already been paid and disputing the claims for maintenance and dowry articles. ----Issues: 1- Whether the dower amount was paid by the appellant. 2- Whether the respondent is entitled to recover dowry articles. 3- Whether the maintenance allowance awarded to the respondent and the minor is justified. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Dower Amount: The plaintiff-respondent alleged that the marriage was solemnized with a deferred dower of Rs.50,000 and 4 tola of gold ornaments as prompt dower. The appellant claimed the deferred dower was paid in gold ornaments. However, he failed to substantiate this claim with credible evidence. The statements from the appellant's witnesses were inconsistent and not confidence-inspiring. The court upheld the lower courts' findings that the dower amount had not been paid. The court maintained the judgment awarding the dower amount to the plaintiff-respondent. --Dowry Articles: The respondent provided a detailed list of dowry articles given at the time of marriage. The appellant outrightly denied the existence of dowry articles in his written statement but failed to produce convincing evidence or credible witnesses to support his claim. The court found the respondent's evidence regarding the dowry articles credible. The court upheld the judgment awarding the recovery of dowry articles to the respondent. --Maintenance Allowance: The court emphasized the legal and moral obligation of the father to maintain his children. The appellant's financial constraints were considered but did not outweigh his responsibility to provide for his minor daughter. The appellant's failure to consistently pay maintenance, despite the court orders, led the court to draw adverse inferences against him. The court upheld the maintenance allowance awarded to the respondent and the minor. ----Citations/Precedents: Shafique Sultan Vs. Mst. Asma Firdous and others (2017 SCMR 393) Emphasizes the customary practice of giving dowry articles and the limited burden on the wife to prove the claim. Muhammad Din vs. Muhammad Ashraf & others (2005 SCR 225) Discusses the reluctance of higher courts to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts unless gross misreading or non-reading of evidence is demonstrated. Kamal Hussain vs. M. Shabir & others (2017 SCR 236) Reinforces the principle that concurrent findings of fact should not be disturbed without substantial reasons. Asma Bashir Abbasi vs. Shahzad Ahmed Abbasi (Civil Appeal No. 433 & 434 of 2020 decided on 25th August, 2021) Highlights the high threshold for challenging concurrent findings of fact on appeal.

Summary: Background: The appellant filed an appeal against the judgment of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court, which had modified the trial court's decree in favor of the respondents for recovery of maintenance allowance and restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent had filed two suits: one for recovery of gold ornaments and another for maintenance allowance, while the appellant had filed a cross-suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The trial court consolidated the suits, decreed the suit for maintenance allowance, and granted the suit for restitution of conjugal rights, but the suit for recovery of gold ornaments was withdrawn. ----Issues: 1- Whether the enhanced maintenance allowance of Rs. 5,000/- per month from the date of desertion, along with 10% annual increase, was justified. 2- Whether the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was valid. 3- Whether the maintenance allowance should be granted from the date of desertion or the date of filing the suit. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Enhanced Maintenance Allowance: The Shariat Appellate Bench increased the maintenance allowance for the minor respondent to Rs. 5,000/- per month from the date of desertion (24.01.2007) with a 10% annual increase. The court found that both parties agreed upon this maintenance amount for the minor, thus no further deliberation was required. The enhancement was upheld. --Restitution of Conjugal Rights: The trial court and the Shariat Appellate Bench decreed the suit for restitution of conjugal rights, conditioned upon the appellant paying maintenance allowance. The appellant failed to substantiate that he had paid any maintenance during the desertion or the pendency of the suit. The respondent proved that the appellant had deserted her and failed to maintain her. The decree for restitution of conjugal rights was upheld, conditioned upon payment of maintenance. --Date of Maintenance Allowance: The court observed that granting maintenance from the date of desertion (24.01.2007) was not in line with the legal precedent, which limits past maintenance to six years prior to the filing of the suit. The appellant's objection was found to have legal substance. The maintenance allowance for respondent No. 1 was modified to be granted from six years prior to the date of filing the suit (10.09.2015). ----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Aslam Khan vs. Mst. Akbar Jan & 2 others [PLJ 1991 SC(AJK) 32] Mst. Zaibun vs. Mehran [2004 SCR, 108] Establishes that past maintenance can be granted up to six years. Abdul Khaliq vs. Sidra Khaliq & 3 others [2014 SCR 280] Mst. Amreen vs. Muhammad Kabir [2014 SCR 504] Lal Begum & 26 others vs. Qayyum Khan & 6 others [2016 SCR 107] Mst. Iqra vs. Abuzar [2012 SCR 284] Confirms that a husband is bound to maintain his wife and that maintenance is not an ex-gratia grant. Muhammad Sajjad Khan vs. Abdul Qadoos Khan And 3 Others [2018 YLR 1985] Emphasizes the binding nature of the Supreme Court's decisions on all lower courts. Muhammad Nawaz vs. Mst. Khurshid Begum and others [PLD 1972 SC 302] Clarifies that Article 120 of the Limitation Act applies to maintenance suits, limiting past maintenance to six years. Muhammad Habib v. Mst. Safia Bibi and others [2008 SCMR 1584] Conclusion: The appeal was partially upheld, with the court modifying the maintenance allowance for respondent No. 1 to be granted from six years prior to the date of filing the suit. The decree for restitution of conjugal rights and the enhanced maintenance for the minor respondent were maintained.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary Pending