Summary: (a) Family Law —West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964—Ss. 5, 14 & Schedule—Dower—Dowry articles—Maintenance allowance—Shari share in ancestral property—Burden of proof—Allegation of snatching of gold ornaments—Scope— Petitioner filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights and recovery of dower, dowry articles, 25 tolas of gold ornaments, Shari share in ancestral property, maintenance allowance, and a loan amount—Trial Court granted relief to the petitioner, directing the respondent to provide a constructed house as per the Nikahnama, pay Rs.200,000, return specific dowry articles, and pay maintenance allowance at Rs.5,000 per month until the period of Iddat—Appeals were filed by both parties—Appellate Court dismissed respondents’ appeals but allowed petitioner’s appeal to the extent of granting recovery of 25 tolas of gold ornaments as dower and Shari share in ancestral property—High Court set aside the Appellate Court’s findings regarding gold ornaments, holding that the allegation of snatching remained unproven—Orders regarding maintenance and dowry articles upheld—Petition before Supreme Court challenging High Court’s judgment—Held, that claim regarding gold ornaments was not substantiated by evidence, and entry in the Nikahnama regarding Shari share in ancestral property was vague—Petition dismissed accordingly. (b) Dower—Gold Ornaments—Burden of Proof —West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964—S. 17—Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984—Arts. 117 & 119—Failure to establish claim—Effect— Petitioner alleged that 25 tolas of gold given as dower were later snatched by the respondent—Trial Court observed that petitioner admitted she did not weigh the jewelry at the time of Rukhsati but received a gold set and six bangles—Held, that no cogent material was produced to prove snatching—Appellate Court reversed this finding, allowing recovery of gold ornaments—High Court overturned Appellate Court’s ruling, relying on petitioner’s deposition stating she voluntarily handed over the jewelry to respondent—Supreme Court held that burden of proof lay on petitioner under Arts. 117 & 119 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, which she failed to discharge—Petition dismissed accordingly. (c) Dower—Shari Share in Ancestral Property —West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964—S. 5 & Schedule—Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984—Arts. 117 & 119—Interpretation of Column No.16 of Nikahnama—Claim of specific property—Scope— Petitioner claimed entitlement to a specific property based on an entry in Nikahnama—Trial Court, after examining evidence, observed that Column No.16 mentioned only a general commitment to providing Shari share in ancestral property without specifying any particular property—Held, that petitioner neither raised an objection to the vagueness of the entry at the time of Nikah nor inquired about the respondent’s share in ancestral property—High Court held that the respondent was bound to provide Shari share in ancestral property, but no specific claim on a particular property could be entertained—Supreme Court upheld these findings, observing that no misreading or non-reading of evidence had occurred—Petition dismissed accordingly. Disposition: Petition dismissed, leave to appeal refused. Cited Cases: Mst. Kaneez Fatima v. Abdul Qayyum PLD 1998 SC 388 Mst. Razia Begum v. Saeed Ahmad 1999 SCMR 1009 Nusrat Bibi v. Muhammad Tariq PLD 2003 SC 590

Summary: Background: The case involves a marital dispute where the petitioner (wife) filed a suit for the recovery of dower and dowry articles after alleging that the respondent (husband) had orally divorced her. The respondent contested the claim of divorce and sought restitution of conjugal rights. While the trial court partially decreed in favor of the petitioner, granting recovery of dower and dowry articles, the respondent had also remarried during the pendency of the case without obtaining permission from the Arbitration Council. This second marriage led to an additional ground for dissolution of the marriage. Both parties challenged various aspects of the trial and appellate court decisions, eventually bringing the case before the Supreme Court. ----- Issues: ----- Recovery of Dower and Dowry Articles: Whether the petitioner was entitled to recovery of the dower and dowry articles as claimed. ----- 2) Restitution of Conjugal Rights: Whether the respondent was entitled to restitution of conjugal rights. ----- 3) Dissolution of Marriage: Whether the appellate court's decision to dissolve the marriage on the basis of Khula (without a request from the wife) was valid, and whether the High Court was correct in dissolving the marriage on the ground of cruelty. ----- 4) Second Marriage Without Permission: Whether the respondent's second marriage, which was contracted without the required permission from the Arbitration Council, provided a valid ground for dissolution of the marriage under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939. ----- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Recovery of Dower and Dowry Articles: The Court upheld the trial court's decision to grant the petitioner recovery of Rs. 500,000 in dower and dowry articles, including 51 Tolas of gold. The findings of the trial court and lower courts were found to be consistent and supported by evidence. ----- Restitution of Conjugal Rights: The Supreme Court set aside the appellate court's decree granting restitution of conjugal rights since the issue of the marriage's validity had not been properly adjudicated. ----- Dissolution of Marriage: The Court found that the appellate court erred in dissolving the marriage on the basis of Khula because the wife had neither expressly nor impliedly requested dissolution on these grounds. Further, the High Court's decision to dissolve the marriage based on cruelty was not supported by sufficient evidence and was therefore set aside. ----- Second Marriage Without Permission: The respondent’s second marriage, which was conducted without the permission of the Arbitration Council, violated Section 6 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The Supreme Court held that this provided valid grounds for dissolution under Clause (iia) of Section 2 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939. Consequently, the marriage was dissolved on this ground. ----- Citations/Precedents: Haseen Ullah v. Mst. Naheed Begum and others (PLD 2022 SC 686) Housing Building Finance Corporation v. Shahinshah Humayun Cooperative House Building Society and others (1992 SCMR 19) Abdul Majid v. Shahzada Asif Jan (PLD 1982 SC 82) Mst. Tayyeba Ambareen v. Shafqat Ali Kiyani (2023 SCMR 246) Mst. Khurshid Bibi v. Baboo Muhammad Amin (PLD 1967 SC 97) Muhammad Arif v. Saima Noreen and another (2015 SCMR 804) Syed Rashid Ali Shah v. Mst. Haleema Bibi and others (PLD 2014 Peshawar 226)

Summary: -----Effect of self-harming statement(s) in the context of action for jactitation of marriage. -----Background: The petitioner filed a constitutional petition challenging concurrent decisions from the Family Court and Appellate Court, which declared the alleged Nikah between the petitioner and respondent void. The respondent claimed she was forced into signing documents under duress, alleging abduction by the petitioner. The petitioner sought restitution of conjugal rights, asserting a valid marriage through Nikah documentation, which the respondent denied. -----Issues: 1- Validity of Nikah: Whether the petitioner validly solemnized the marriage with the respondent in accordance with the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. ----2- Free Will and Consent: Whether the respondent’s statements and signatures were made voluntarily or under duress. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Court upheld the concurrent findings, confirming that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence of a valid Nikah. The Nikah Nama was presented without credible witnesses, and the petitioner could not establish the voluntary and lawful nature of the respondent’s alleged statements. The Court found that the respondent consistently denied the marriage, claiming coercion, and her testimony was deemed credible. Statements made under duress were given higher evidentiary weight than those produced by the petitioner, who sought to avoid criminal implications. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. -----Citations/Precedents: Mst. Farhat Jabeen vs. Muhammad Safdar and others (2011 SCMR 1073): Distinguished on factual grounds. Matloob Hussain vs. Mst. Shahida and others (PLD 2006 SC 489): Supported the respondent’s case, illustrating similar legal principles regarding invalidation of coerced marriages.

Summary: Facts:The petitioner, Muhammad Ali Khan, and the respondent, Mst. Aaisha Zafar, were involved in matrimonial disputes leading to multiple legal actions. The respondent filed a suit for recovery of her dower and maintenance allowance, while the petitioner filed for restitution of conjugal rights. The lower court's consolidated judgment decreed in favor of the respondent, granting her a maintenance allowance and recognizing her entitlement to property as dower, conditional on the performance of matrimonial obligations. The petitioner challenged these judgments and subsequent execution orders regarding the transfer of property and maintenance payments.---Issues:The credibility of the nikahnama entry concerning the dower property.The entitlement of the respondent to maintenance allowance and property possession.The procedural aspects regarding the framing of issues and production of evidence.----Judgment:The High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition and upheld the decisions of the lower courts. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's claim of forgery in the nikahnama entry, noting the petitioner's inconsistent statements regarding the dower property. The Court emphasized the presumption of truth attached to a registered nikahnama and found that the petitioner failed to provide cogent evidence to rebut this presumption. The Court also rejected the petitioner's argument regarding the framing of issues, as no such application was filed at the trial or appellate levels.The Court further held that the respondent is entitled to not only the transfer of the dower property but also its possession and the usufruct thereof. The petitioner's failure to deliver possession of the dower property was seen as an attempt to delay fulfilling his obligations, which the Court found unacceptable.Additionally, the connected petition regarding the surety bond for maintenance payments was deemed infructuous following the dismissal of the main petition, as the judgments and decrees challenged were upheld.----Reasoning:The Court reasoned that the petitioner's varying claims regarding the dower entry and his acknowledgment of the obligation to transfer the property undermined his allegations of forgery. Furthermore, the obligation to pay dower includes transferring possession and ensuring the wife can utilize the property. The petitioner's resistance to these obligations was viewed as contrary to the principles of fairness and matrimonial duties.----Holding:The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition and the connected petitions, affirming the lower courts' judgments and orders. The petitioner was also held responsible for the costs of litigation.

Summary: Background: The appellant filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, while the respondent filed four suits seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty, dower, maintenance, and recovery of dowry articles. The Family Court consolidated the suits and decreed the dissolution of marriage on the basis of khula, awarding maintenance from April 22, 2021, to the period of iddat, and dismissed other suits, including the appellant's suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The appellant appealed against the dissolution of marriage and the maintenance allowance decree. ----Issues: 1- Whether the Family Court erred in dissolving the marriage on the basis of khula. 2- Whether the Family Court correctly awarded maintenance allowance from April 22, 2021, to the period of iddat. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Dissolution of Marriage (Khula): The court upheld the dissolution of marriage on the basis of khula, referencing Verse No. 229 of Surah Baqarah from the Holy Quran, which allows a wife to seek divorce by returning consideration to the husband if they cannot keep within the limits of God. The court emphasized that a judge can order khula even without the husband's agreement, based on precedents from the life of the Holy Prophet (PBUH), where khula was enforced upon the wife's request for separation due to incompatibility or extreme dislike. The evidence presented showed sufficient grounds for mental cruelty and an irreparable breakdown of the marital relationship, justifying the khula decree. --Maintenance Allowance: The court upheld the award of maintenance from April 22, 2021, to the period of iddat, citing the husband's failure to provide maintenance and evidence of mental cruelty and neglect. The court reasoned that the husband's duty to maintain his wife continues unless there is clear evidence of disobedience or wrongful abandonment, which was not substantiated by the appellant. The appeal challenging the dissolution of marriage was dismissed, and the award of maintenance allowance was upheld. -----Citations/Precedents: Verse No. 229 of Surah Baqarah, Holy Quran Instances of khula enforced by the Holy Prophet (PBUH) Abid Hussain v. Additional District Judge [2006 SCMR 100] Mst. Ambreen v. Muhammad Kabeer [2014 SCR 504] Muhammad Sabil Khan v. Saima Inshad [2014 SCR 718] Azhar Bashir v. Sadia Shafique [2015 SCR 521] Mehvish Kazmi v. Parvaiz Hussain [PLD 2022 SC (AJ&K) 1] Zaheer-ud-Din Babar v. Shazia Kausar [2016 CLC 332] Mst. Khurshid Bibi v. Baboo Muhammad Amin [PLD 1967 SC 97] Zubair v. Senior Superintendent Police, Jhelum Valley [PLD 2023 High Court (AJ&K) 89] Multan Jan v. The State [2020 P.Cr.LJ 88] B. Premanad vs. Mohan Koikal [AIR 2011 SC 1925] Muzaffar Ali v. Mst. Mehran Nisa [1989 CLC 1805] Muhammad Yaseen v. The State [2001 YLR 289] Sheikh Saeed Ahmed v. Abdul Wahid [1999 SCMR 1852]

Summary: Background: In the consolidated Family Appeals No: 62/2023 and No: 63/2023, the appellant, challenged the judgment and decrees passed by the Additional District Judge, acting as a Family Court in Bagh, on January 23, 2023. The appellant had filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, while the respondent, Syeda Muneeba Gillani, had filed suits for dower and maintenance allowance. ----Issues: 1- Whether the respondent was entitled to maintenance allowance despite leaving the appellant's house. 2- Whether the dower amount was outstanding and should be paid by the appellant. 3- Whether the trial court's decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favor of the appellant was justifiable. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Maintenance Allowance: The court upheld the trial court’s decision to grant maintenance allowance to the respondent. It was determined that the respondent had left the appellant’s house due to mental and physical cruelty, making her entitled to maintenance. --Dower: The court confirmed that the dower amount of PKR 100,000 was outstanding and should be paid by the appellant. The contents of the "Nikahnama" indicated the dower as deferred, and the appellant’s witness admitted that the dower was unpaid. --Restitution of Conjugal Rights: The court set aside the trial court’s decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favor of the appellant. The evidence showed that the respondent had suffered mental torture and cruel treatment, making it unreasonable to compel her to return to the marital home. The court upheld the trial court’s decision to grant maintenance allowance and the outstanding dower to the respondent. However, the decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favor of the appellant was set aside. The respondent was also deemed entitled to past maintenance and maintenance for the "iddat" period following the appellant’s divorce on January 23, 2023. -----Citations/Precedents: Abid Hussain v. Additional District Judge [2006 SCMR 100] Mst. Ambreen v. Muhammad Kabeer [2014 SCR 504] Muhammad Sabil Khan v. Saima Inshad [2014 SCR 718] Azhar Bashir v. Sadia Shafique [2015 SCR 521] Mst. Khurshid Bibi v. Baboo Muhammad Amin [PLD 1967 SC 97] Zubair v. Senior Superintendent Police, Jhelum Valley [PLD 2023 High Court (AJ&K) 89]

Summary: Writ Petition.Held: Constitution of Pakistan 1973--Article 199--West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964--Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961--S.9--Suit by wife for recovery of maintenance allowance, dower, dowry articles etc--Family Court decreed the suit granting maintenance, provision of separate house, while remaining suit was dismissed while husband was granted decree for restitution of conjugal rights---Appeal filed by the parties were, however, dismissed ----Objection to grant of decree of maintenanc eallowance by the husband in the constitutional petition --S.9 of the Muslim Family LawsOrdinance, 1961, makes it incumbent upon the husband to provide maintenance if event he wife is staying away from the husband due to just and valid reason---mistreatment and forcible ouster forced the wife to live apart---husband is bound to provide maintenance to the respondent/wife--Both the courts below have properly evaluated the record and have correctly appreciated the record---constitutional petition being merit less stands dismissed.

Summary: Claim of dower through Agreement subsequent to Nikahnama is permissible and was duly proved --- Umair Hassan Sabri, referred to as the "Petitioner," filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights against Hafsa Abbas Chishti, referred to as the "Respondent." The Petitioner claimed that after their marriage in 2010, the Respondent separated from him, leading to the need for a suit for restitution of conjugal rights.The Respondent contested the suit and also filed a separate suit for the recovery of dower, maintenance allowance, pocket money, and dowry articles. The Family Court consolidated the suits and framed several issues to be addressed.After evaluating evidence from both parties, the Family Court dismissed the Petitioner's suit and decreed the Respondent's suit, granting her 120 Tolas silver ornaments, Rs. 1,500,000/- as dower, Rs. 10,000/- per month as pocket money, Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance allowance, and dowry articles.The Petitioner challenged the judgment, arguing that the maintenance allowance and pocket money were excessive, the dower had been paid through a cheque, and the value of dowry articles was wrongly determined.The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the evidence, concluding that the Petitioner failed to prove the payment of dower through a cheque and that the Respondent was entitled to the decreed amounts. The court also notes the dissolution of marriage between the parties and upholds the decision to relinquish 25% of the prompt dower as part of the divorce proceedings.

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: 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]