Summary: (a) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)----Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199----Dowry and bridal gifts---Recovery of alternate value of dowry articles---Scope of constitutional jurisdiction---Petitioner/wife challenged concurrent family court judgments whereby trial court had granted 30% alternate value of dowry articles but appellate court had set aside even that relief---Held, dowry articles and personal belongings of a wife remain her exclusive property and, where not returned in specie, she may claim their alternate value, subject to proof of existence, entrustment and retention---Appellate Court failed to appreciate material admissions and surrounding circumstances, including respondent/husband’s own stance that household articles were available in the house and his admission that no traditional dowry was given at the time of marriage, coupled with his assertion that he purchased various household luxuries during matrimony---Where original financial details were withheld by husband and wife’s bank record showed regular withdrawal of her salary for household consumption, presumption operated in favour of wife’s contribution---Appellate Court had, therefore, misdirected itself in discarding claim in toto merely on ground that wife had not produced her parents or further documentary proof. (b) Dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Act (LXXVIII of 1976)----Ss. 2 & 5---Dowry---Meaning and legal status---Property given to bride before or after marriage by her parents in connection with marriage constitutes dowry, excluding inherited property---Wife has absolute right in her dowry and bridal gifts---Any property rights available to a woman cannot be restricted, controlled or limited, and every gift becomes her exclusive property---There is no legal bar to a wife purchasing household articles herself after marriage and claiming them as dowry articles within the meaning of law, if such articles were acquired in connection with marriage and matrimonial home. Reliance placed on Ghulam Rasool v. Family Court 1991 CLC 1696 and Syeda Mehwish v. Additional District Judge, Islamabad (West) 2018 CLC 1337. (c) Family proceedings---Proof of dowry articles---Nature of evidence required---Strict rules of evidence---Held, wife’s solitary statement may be sufficient to prove existence of dowry items in a recovery suit, and oral testimony can substantiate a dowry claim because Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 does not apply in its strict sense to family proceedings---There is no rigid formula requiring receipts, shopkeepers’ details or production of parents in every case---Determination depends upon facts of each case and overall probabilities emerging from evidence. Reliance placed on Aziz-Ur-Rehman v. Mst. Bibi Jameela 2020 CLC 380 and Shafique Sultan v. Mst. Asma Firdous 2017 SCMR 393. (d) Dowry articles---Valuation of used household goods---Principles---Held, valuation of dowry articles is to be made case to case with reference to nature, quality, user period and prevailing market conditions---Judge, Family Court cannot adopt a bare rule of thumb without objective criteria---For assessing alternate value of used household articles, relevant factors include: present and past market value; years of use; average life of article; sentimental value attached to item; need to account for replacement at current price where article remains with husband; online market sources and auction platforms for valuation; reasonable depreciation; inflation and consumer price data; and average market prices supplied by parties---Used item may generally be considered at half price, but not below that level, unless marital breakdown occurred within first one or two years, in which case value may be considered around 80% in view of inflation and taxation---Family Court may use modern scientific tools, data, websites and market applications without requiring expert evidence in every case. Reliance placed on Mst. Ayesha Shaheen v. Khalid Mehmood 2013 SCMR 1049; Muhammad Zahid v. Mst. Ghazala Mazhar 2014 CLC 895; Mst. Samreen Bibi v. Judge Family Court PLD 2015 Lahore 504; and Haji Muhammad Nawaz v. Samina Kanwal 2017 SCMR 321. (e) Matrimonial property---Assets acquired during subsistence of marriage---Vehicle purchased in husband’s name---Claim of wife on basis of contribution---Islamic jurisprudence, comparative jurisprudence and equitable principles---Petitioner/wife claimed that vehicle bearing Registration No. AAK-478, Suzuki Cultus, though standing in husband’s name, was acquired with her financial contribution including initial seed money---Held, such asset required consideration not merely as dowry but as matrimonial property---Though under existing Pakistani law a wife does not automatically acquire ownership in husband’s assets merely by marriage, proprietary interest may still be established through proof of contribution, partnership, trust, gift or joint acquisition---Non-financial contributions such as homemaking, childcare and domestic management possess economic significance and can justify recognition of beneficial interest in assets accumulated during marriage---Marriage operates as a cooperative partnership and there should be no bias in favour of sole titled money-earner against homemaker or child-carer. (f) Islamic law---Marriage and property rights---Separate ownership of spouses---Legislative competence to protect women’s matrimonial rights---Held, under classical Islamic jurisprudence husband and wife remain distinct legal persons with separate property rights; wife retains control over her own property and does not, by marriage alone, become owner of husband’s property, nor does husband acquire wife’s property automatically---However, Islamic law does not prohibit legislation for protection of women in respect of matrimonial property where justice and prevention of hardship so require---Concepts of mut‘at al-talaq, maslahah, ijtihad and compensation for women’s contribution provide room for development of protective legal norms---Silence of classical law on community or matrimonial property does not bar modern legislation safeguarding women from post-divorce destitution and exploitation. (g) Comparative jurisprudence---Recognition of marital partnership and non-financial contribution---Held, in a number of jurisdictions including Malaysia, Indonesia, Iran, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, Syria, Libya, Brunei, United Kingdom, United States and Canada, courts and legislation recognize direct and indirect contributions of spouses in distribution of matrimonial assets---Homemaking and childcare are treated as contributions of equal worth to financial input in appropriate cases---Principles of constructive trust, unjust enrichment, equitable distribution and community property regimes demonstrate a broader modern trend that marriage is an economic partnership and domestic contribution materially aids acquisition and preservation of wealth---Such comparative experience may legitimately guide development of family law principles in Pakistan. (h) Women’s rights---Constitutional protection---International obligations---CEDAW---Held, Pakistan, having ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), is under an obligation to reconsider its legal framework so as to eliminate discrimination against women in matters concerning ownership, acquisition, management and disposition of property, including consequences of dissolution of marriage---Equal protection of women, particularly homemakers and working wives, requires meaningful legal and policy safeguards in respect of assets acquired during marriage. (i) Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Writ jurisdiction---Limits on enhancement of relief---Held, High Court in constitutional jurisdiction does not ordinarily reappraise evidence to enhance relief granted by trial court---Although appellate court had erred in law and fact by denying wife’s rights altogether, High Court could not itself enhance trial court’s award from 30% to a higher quantified share on writ side---Proper course was to set aside both judgments and remand matter to Family Court for fresh decision after hearing parties and applying correct legal principles. (j) Recommendations/observations---Legislative reform---Nikahnama---Protection of wife’s property rights---High Court observed that every wife who cohabits with husband during subsistence of marriage should be deemed to have contributed, through domestic labour, childcare and household management, to establishment and maintenance of matrimonial home and family welfare---Recommended that Government initiate comprehensive legislation for equitable distribution of assets acquired during marriage, with enhanced protection for working wives and recognition of homemaker’s contribution---Further observed that Nikahnama may be amended, or appropriate condition inserted in existing form, to record agreement regarding equal division of property acquired after marriage, so as to better protect matrimonial property rights of women. Petition was allowed, judgments and decrees of Family Court and Appellate Court were set aside, and matter was remanded to Family Court for fresh decision after hearing parties, to be decided within two months.

Summary: (a) Family law ----Nikahnama---Dower (Haq Mehr)---Column No.16---Property specified as dower---Dower payable on demand (andal talab)---Once immovable property is entered in nikahnama as dower, husband is under legal obligation to keep such property reserved for transfer to wife upon demand---Subsequent alienations made by husband or through close relatives behind wife’s back cannot defeat wife’s vested dower rights---Transfers effected within short span to defeat dower claim held of no legal consequence. (b) Transfer of Property---Bona fide purchaser---Knowledge of encumbrance---Petitioner claimed to be bona fide purchaser of dowered land---Record showed petitioner had knowledge of entry of dowered land in nikahnama at least by date of filing application for impleadment---Despite such knowledge, petitioner purchased substantial portion of dowered land through registered sale deed---Claim of bona fide purchaser without notice found untenable---Purchaser with notice cannot claim protection against wife’s dower rights. (c) Family Courts Act, 1964 ----Recovery of dower---Impleadment of subsequent transferees---Where dowered property has been transferred to third parties, such transferees can be impleaded and suit can proceed against them---Decree for dower enforceable against property notwithstanding intervening mutations and sale deeds. (d) Evidence ----Nikahnama---Proof of execution---Secretary Union Council and Nikah Registrar produced---Execution and contents of nikahnama duly proved through official witnesses---Allegation of forged or fictitious nikahnama rejected in absence of any challenge to its validity despite knowledge---Concurrent findings upheld. (e) Civil procedure ----Concurrent findings of fact---Scope of interference---Family Court, Appellate Court and High Court returned concurrent findings on facts and law---No perversity, misreading or non-reading of evidence pointed out---Supreme Court declined to interfere in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution. Cited cases: Nil cited in judgment. Disposition: Leave to appeal declined; petition dismissed; concurrent judgments of Family Court, Appellate Court and High Court upholding respondent-wife’s entitlement to dowered land affirmed.

Summary: (a) West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 ---- Ss. 10(4), 10(5) & 10(6) --- Punjab Family Courts (Amendment) Act, 2015 --- Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 ---- S. 7 --- Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 ---- S. 2 --- Dower --- Khula --- Dissolution of Marriage --- Maintainability --- Through this judgment, we propose to decide C.P.L.A. Nos.2555 and 2556 of 2022 since they entail common features with same contesting parties --- Record shows that Adeel Akhter ("respondent") and Wajiha Rasheed ("petitioner") got married on 05.04.2001 --- Rukhsati did not take place until 28.06.2004 --- As per contents of Nikahnama, dower was fixed at Rs.10,00,000/- on demand in addition to Plot No.6, Sector-D, Ghazikot Township, Mansehra ("Plot No.6") --- Couple lived in United Kingdom for about three years after which petitioner returned to Pakistan --- After respondent's father, Muhammad Akhter sold Plot No.6 to one Riaz Ahmed, petitioner, on 20.12.2010, filed suit for declaration, permanent injunction and possession ("Suit No.216/FC of 2010") before family court against respondent as well as Muhammad Akhter and Riaz Ahmed praying inter alia for declaration to effect that she is owner of Plot No.6 on basis of entries in Nikahnama dated 05.08.2001 --- Petitioner had impleaded Riaz Ahmed as defendant in suit as he had purchased Plot No.6 from petitioner's father-in-law through Transfer Deed No.1194 dated 30.04.2004 --- This suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 18.10.2011 --- By this time, marriage between petitioner and respondent was intact --- Respondent's appeal against family court's said judgment and decree dated 18.10.2011, was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 09.06.2012 --- Respondent filed writ petition No.548-A/2012 before high court against said concurrent judgments and decrees --- At this juncture, we deem it appropriate to make reference to suit for dissolution of marriage, recovery of maintenance allowance, dower and dowry articles ("Family Suit No.45 of 2012") filed by petitioner on 01.02.2012 before family court against respondent and his father --- On 09.10.2012, petitioner made statement before family court that there was no chance of reconciliation between parties; that on account of hatred and aversion that she had developed for respondent, she does not want to live with him; that she has not been paid her dower; and that she has no intention of relinquishing her dower --- After recording petitioner's statement, family court, vide order dated 08.11.2012 dissolved marriage and proceeded to frame issues --- One of issues framed was whether petitioner was entitled to recover dower amounting to Rs.10,00,000/- from respondent --- It appears that issue whether she was entitled to Plot No.6 as dower was not framed as by time issues were framed, she had already obtained decree with respect to said plot in her favour in Suit No.216/FC of 2010 --- As petitioner had alleged cruelty at hands of respondent, and had not relinquished her dower, family court proceeded further with trial --- Trial culminated in judgment and decree dated 06.11.2014 whereby petitioner was held entitled to recovery of dowry articles or their alternative depreciated value of Rs.200,000/- as well as to maintenance allowance of Rs.20,000/- per month for three-month Iddat period --- Family court turned down petitioner's claim for recovery of gold ornaments --- Her claim for recovery of dower was also turned down as she had not been able to prove cruelty or brutality at hands of respondent --- Petitioner's appeal against family court's said judgment and decree was dismissed by appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 01.03.2016 --- Petitioner preferred writ petition No.1007/2016 before high court against said concurrent judgments and decrees --- High court decided writ petition No.548-A/2012 titled "Adeel Akhter etc. Vs. Wajiha Rasheed etc." (reference to which has been made in paragraph-4 above) and writ petition No.1007/2016 titled "Wajiha Rasheed Vs. Additional District Judge, etc." vide two separate judgments dated 17.03.2022 --- In its judgment passed in writ petition No.1007/2016, high court did not interfere with concurrent judgments and decrees of family court and appellate court passed in Family Suit No.45 of 2012 --- As regards writ petition No.548-A/2012, high court allowed same by holding that since marriage had been dissolved on basis of khula, petitioner would not be entitled to recovery of dower --- In holding so, high court had taken cognizance of development subsequent to judgment and decree passed in Suit No.216/FC of 2010 i.e. judgment and decree passed by family court in Family Suit No.45 of 2012 --- In fact, high court reproduced operative part of family court's order dated 08.11.2012 whereby marriage between petitioner and respondent, was dissolved --- High court did not give benefit of amendments made in section 10(5) and (6) of West-Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 through Punjab Family Courts (Amendment) Act, 2015 whereby in case of dissolution of marriage through khula, wife is to surrender up to 50% of her deferred dower or up to 25% of her admitted prompt dower to husband, whereas in case of decree for dissolution of marriage, family court is to direct husband to pay whole or part of outstanding deferred dower to wife --- High court took view, and correctly so, that since decree for dissolution of marriage pre-dates enactment of Punjab Family Courts (Amendment) Act, 2015, it could not be given retrospective effect --- Learned counsel for petitioner's submissions centered around petitioner's entitlement to her dower --- She asserted that concurrent judgments and decrees of family court and appellate court in Suit No.216/FC of 2010 entitling petitioner to Plot No.6 on basis of entries in Nikahnama could not have been interfered with by high court simply because in subsequent suit (Family Suit No.45 of 2012) for dissolution of marriage etc., petitioner had not been able to prove cruelty at hands of respondent --- Furthermore, it was submitted that even if petitioner was required to return dower, it should have been only to extent as provided in section 10(5) and (6) of West-Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 as amended by Punjab Family Courts (Amendment) Act, 2015 --- We have heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused record with her able assistance --- Although order dated 08.11.2012 (passed in Family Suit No.45 of 2012), whereby family court dissolved marriage between petitioner and respondent makes no mention of "khula", it does explicitly state that "marriage between parties is hereby dissolved under proviso [to] section 10 of Family Courts Act, 1964" --- Proviso to section 10(4) of said Act provides that in suit for dissolution of marriage, if reconciliation fails, family court shall pass decree for dissolution of marriage forthwith and "also restore to husband haq mahr received by wife" in consideration of marriage at time of marriage --- Through order dated 08.11.2012, marriage between petitioner and respondent was dissolved, but no order was passed as to return of dower --- This is because petitioner had alleged cruelty at hands of respondent, and she had to prove same in her evidence --- Family court and appellate court, after appraisal of evidence came to conclusion that petitioner had not been able to prove cruelty at hands of respondent in any form and therefore, she was liable to return dower --- Since petitioner had obtained decree for Plot No.6 (which was part of her dower), from another court in earlier suit (Suit No.216/FC of 2010), high court was well within its rights to allow respondent's writ petition and disentitle petitioner to such dower --- Petitioner's claim to Plot No.6 was based on entries in Nikahnama --- She had filed Suit No.216/FC of 2010 for declaration as to ownership of Plot No.6 on 20.12.2010 --- This suit was decreed on 18.10.2011 --- It is after this decree that petitioner, on 01.02.2012 had filed Family Suit No.45 of 2012 for dissolution of marriage and recovery of dower etc --- After order dated 08.11.2012 for dissolution of marriage, petitioner's entitlement to dower was dependent on whether she was compelled to leave her matrimonial abode or she had done so on her own volition for reasons not attributable to respondent --- Since family court, in its judgment and decree dated 06.11.2014 passed in Family Suit No.45 of 2012 had clearly held that she had not been able to prove cruelty at hands of respondent in any manner, therefore, her claim to ownership of Plot No.6 (which was part of her dower) even though based on earlier judgment and decree dated 18.10.2011 passed in earlier Suit No.216/FC of 2010 would cease --- Family court's finding that petitioner has to restore Haq Mahr/dower to respondent has been given due recognition by high court by setting aside concurrent judgments and decrees whereby Plot No.6 was declared to be petitioner's property on basis of entries in Nikahnama --- We tend to agree with findings of family court that it would have been different matter had petitioner been able to prove cruelty or brutality at hands of respondent --- In such eventuality, petitioner would have been entitled to retain her dower and there would have been no reason for high court to interfere with judgment and decree dated 06.11.2014 passed by family court in Family Suit No.45 of 2012 --- Dissolution of marriage under judgment and decree dated 06.11.2014 passed in Family Suit No.45 of 2012 not entitling petitioner to retain or obtain Haq Mahr was crucial development subsequent to filing of Suit No.216/FC of 2010 and had profound bearing on decree that petitioner had got regarding Plot No.6 prior to dissolution of her marriage --- It is well settled that courts can look into subsequent events at time of deciding cases --- Reference in this regard may be made to law laid down in cases of Mst. Amina Begum Vs. Mehar Ghulam Dastgir (PLD 1978 SC 220), Muhammadi Vs. Ghulam Nabi (2007 SCMR 761), Khushi Muhammad Vs. Abdul Ghafoor (2006 SCMR 839) and Evacuee Trust Property Board Vs. Sakina Bibi (2007 SCMR 262) --- With passing of decree dated 06.11.2014 in Family Suit No.45 of 2012 (which has been upheld by appellate court and high court), decree dated 18.10.2011 that was given in petitioner's favour in Suit No.216/FC of 2010 had become obsolete or unserviceable --- In case of Muhammad Arif Vs. Saima Noreen (2015 SCMR 804), it was held that where family court had reached conclusion that no cruelty could be proved by wife, it could not grant decree for dissolution of marriage on basis of cruelty under Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 --- Furthermore, it was held that only logical conclusion was that marriage should have been dissolved on basis of khula in which event wife would have to forgo dower amount --- Since we do not find any legal infirmity in impugned judgments dated 17.03.2022 passed by high court in writ petitions No. 548-A/2012 and 1007/2016, leave to appeal is declined and petitions are dismissed --- Petitions were dismissed accordingly.

Summary: (a) Family Laws— —Dower—Recovery of dower in form of ornaments or cash—Entitlement to prevailing market value—Scope of decree— Family Judge decreed in favour of wife recovery of seven (07) tolas of gold ornaments or in the alternative Rs.100,000/- as dower—In execution, decree-holder sought recovery of gold ornaments or their current market value—Executing Court directed recovery of ornaments or their prevailing price—Revisional Court set aside such order by holding entitlement restricted to Rs.100,000/-—High Court, in writ petition, reversed the Revisional Court and restored Executing Court’s order—Supreme Court upheld High Court—Held, where decree affords alternate modes of satisfaction, decree-holder retains liberty to elect the more beneficial option—Executing Court is competent to direct payment of current market value where delivery of ornaments is not possible—Principle affirmed in Haji Muhammad Nawaz v. Samina Kanwal (2017 SCMR 321) and Mst. Ayesha Shaheen v. Khalid Mehmood (2013 SCMR 1049)—Entries in Nikahnama are to be treated as independent obligations, not merely substitutes for prompt dower—Haseen Ullah v. Mst. Naheed Begum (PLD 2022 SC 686) relied upon. (b) Execution of Decree— —Amendment in execution petition—Effect— Addition of Rs.100,000/- in execution petition by decree-holder was made upon objection of judgment-debtor—Such amendment did not amount to waiver, relinquishment, or substitution of right to ornaments—High Court rightly appreciated that decree-holder continued to retain her original claim of seven (07) tolas of gold in alternative to cash. (c) Constitutional Jurisdiction— —Supervisory scope of High Court—Reappraisal of evidence not permissible— Once trial and appellate forums have adjudicated upon facts, constitutional courts exercise only limited jurisdiction and cannot re-evaluate evidence or substitute findings of appellate courts—Principle reaffirmed in M. Hamad Hassan v. Mst. Isma Bukhari (2023 SCMR 1434)—High Court’s interference in writ jurisdiction was justified as Revisional Court had travelled beyond decree and misapplied settled principles. Cited Cases Haji Muhammad Nawaz v. Samina Kanwal & others 2017 SCMR 321 Mst. Ayesha Shaheen v. Khalid Mehmood & others 2013 SCMR 1049 Haseen Ullah v. Mst. Naheed Begum & others PLD 2022 SC 686 M. Hamad Hassan v. Mst. Isma Bukhari & others 2023 SCMR 1434 Disposition Petition dismissed—Leave to Appeal refused.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan – Arts. 14 & 35 – Right to Dignity and Protection of the Family Litigation weaponizing infertility and attacking womanhood—Scope—Held, right to dignity under Art.14 and the obligation to protect the institution of marriage under Art.35 prohibit the use of litigation to degrade and traumatize women—Allegation by petitioner-husband that respondent-wife was not legally “female” and unfit for conjugal life, despite conclusive medical findings and evidence of cohabitation, was found to be frivolous, demeaning, and abusive—Court recorded strong disapproval of such conduct, terming it an affront to personal dignity and an abuse of judicial process. (b) Muslim Family Laws – Dower and Maintenance – Validity despite Alleged Infertility Entitlement to dower and maintenance—Effect of infertility or suspicion thereof—Held, infertility, even if established, is no bar to a woman’s entitlement to dower or maintenance—Marital bond is a sacred covenant under Islamic law; personal medical conditions cannot be weaponized to undermine marital obligations—Court affirmed that the respondent-wife, having lived with the petitioner and proven consummation of marriage, was entitled to dower, dowry articles, and maintenance, as rightly held by courts below. (c) Family Courts Act, 1964 – Concurrent Findings – Interference by Supreme Court Concurrent findings of fact by Family Court, District Court, and High Court—Scope of interference—Held, Supreme Court will not disturb concurrent factual findings unless a legal error is apparent on the face of record—In present case, judgments of courts below were well-reasoned, based on record, and legally sound—Leave to appeal refused accordingly. (d) Civil Procedure – Abuse of Process – Frivolous and Malicious Defence Malicious litigation—Repeated allegations of non-femininity and infertility despite contrary medical findings—Held, petitioner’s persistent attempts to degrade the respondent through invasive scrutiny amounted to misuse of judicial process—Such conduct warrants exemplary sanction to deter recurrence and uphold judicial dignity. (e) Costs – Exemplary Costs – Deterrence against Misuse of Judicial Process Award of exemplary costs—Scope and justification—Held, Court has inherent power to impose exemplary costs to penalize frivolous and abusive litigation—Petitioner’s conduct caused prolonged trauma and humiliation to the respondent over a decade—Petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 500,000/- to be paid to the respondent—Non-payment to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Disposition: Petition dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 500,000/- imposed on the petitioner for abuse of judicial process and personal degradation of the respondent; recoverable as arrears of land revenue in case of non-payment.

Summary: a) Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961) —- S. 5 —- Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (X of 1984), Art. 85 —- Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3) —- Dower —- Proof of Nikah Nama —- Evidentiary presumption —- Leave to appeal —- Execution of Nikah Nama not denied —- Non-production of marginal witnesses —- Effect —- Validity —- Where the relationship of husband and wife is admitted and execution of Nikah Nama is not specifically denied in the written statement, the plaintiff-wife’s failure to produce marginal witnesses of the Nikah Nama is not fatal to her claim. A Nikah Nama is a public document under S.5 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 and carries presumption of truth under Art. 85 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Mere verbal denial of execution during oral testimony, without corroborating evidence, carries no legal weight. In the present case, the defendant did not dispute the Nikah Nama in his pleadings but attempted to deny it orally at trial without proof. Such denial was rightly disregarded by the trial court. Cited Cases: Rasool Bibi v. Waryam (1992 SCMR 1520) Jan Muhammad v. Salamat Bibi (2002 SCMR 1408) (b) Family Courts —- Suit for recovery of dower and maintenance —- Appellate Court and High Court —- Failure to determine crucial issue —- Jurisdiction not properly exercised —- Remand —- The trial court had framed an issue regarding maintenance allowance (Issue No.3), yet both the Appellate Court and the High Court failed to record any findings on this issue. Such omission constituted a failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in them under the law. The Supreme Court held that the non-determination of a framed issue by the subordinate forums warranted remand for proper adjudication. The matter was thus remanded to the High Court to decide the constitutional petition afresh in light of the observations made by the Supreme Court. Disposition: Appeal allowed. Impugned order of the High Court set aside. Case remanded to the Peshawar High Court for decision afresh within thirty working days after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties.

Summary: (a) Family law ---- Recovery of dowry articles --- Gold ornaments --- Gifted articles --- Burden of proof --- Onus to prove snatching of ornaments --- Reappraisal of evidence --- Appellate interference. Petitioner filed a suit for recovery of 11 tolas of gold ornaments, alleging they were gifted by respondent and later snatched when she was expelled from the matrimonial home. Family court dismissed the claim, holding that snatching was not proved. Appellate court reversed the judgment, treating respondent’s inability to account for the ornaments as implicit admission of possession. High Court, in constitutional jurisdiction, set aside appellate judgment and restored family court’s decision, noting petitioner’s failure to appear as a witness and lack of independent evidence of snatching. Supreme Court held that while the gift of ornaments was admitted, the onus to prove snatching lay on the petitioner. However, the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by reappraising evidence and substituting findings of fact recorded by the appellate court. Matter remanded to the appellate court for fresh decision in light of observations made. (b) Constitution of Pakistan ---- Art. 199 --- Constitutional jurisdiction --- Scope --- Reappraisal of evidence in writ jurisdiction --- Impermissibility. Supreme Court reaffirmed that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution, cannot re-evaluate evidence or substitute its own findings for those of the lower courts. Where conflicting findings exist between the family and appellate courts, and the appellate court’s conclusion is based on appreciation of evidence, interference by the High Court is unwarranted unless perversity is apparent. The High Court’s re-evaluation of facts regarding the alleged snatching of gold ornaments was held to be in excess of its jurisdiction. (c) Civil Procedure --- Appellate jurisdiction --- Remand of case --- Scope. Where substantial questions regarding factual entitlement arise and have been inconsistently dealt with by lower forums, the proper course is remand. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remanded the case to the appellate court to reappraise evidence and determine whether the petitioner was entitled to recovery of 11 tolas of gold ornaments, especially in light of respondent’s admissions and the trial record. Disposition: Leave granted. Petition converted into appeal and allowed. Judgment of High Court set aside. Case remanded to appellate court for fresh decision in accordance with law.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 199(1)(a)(ii)—Jurisdictional limits—High Court’s powers in writ jurisdiction—Concurrent findings of fact—Proper course of action—Scope and limits of judicial review High Court, while exercising Constitutional jurisdiction under Art. 199(1)(a)(ii), cannot act as a Court of facts or substitute its own findings for those of Courts or Tribunals below—In the case at hand, the High Court allowed a writ petition against concurrent judgments of the Family Court and appellate Court that had dismissed a suit for recovery of dower—High Court set aside those judgments and went further to decree the suit itself—Such substitution of findings and issuance of a decree was held to be beyond its jurisdiction—While High Court may interfere where findings are based on misreading or non-reading of material evidence, the proper remedy is remand, not adjudication on merits—Exercise of certiorari does not permit arrogation of trial court powers. Cited Cases: • Azmat Ali v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner PLD 1964 SC 260 • Nawaza v. Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner PLD 1970 SC 39 • Shabbir Hussain v. Muhammad Afzal 1972 SCMR 47 • Muhammad Younus Khan v. Government of N.-W.F.P. 1993 SCMR 619 (b) Family Law ----Recovery of dower—Gift deed and tamleeq nama as proof—Standard of proof—Relaxed application of procedural law—Evidentiary standard in family cases Respondent-wife based her claim for recovery of dower not on entries in the nikah nama but on the basis of a gift deed and tamleeq nama allegedly executed by her father-in-law in favour of her husband and by her husband in her favour—Family Court and appellate Court concurrently held that execution of such deeds was not proved—High Court, however, set aside those findings, holding that procedural laws like the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 and CPC are not strictly applicable in family disputes—Testimonies of witnesses and admission by petitioner No.1 were considered sufficient to establish execution—Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court’s setting aside of the concurrent judgments but held that decreeing the suit on its own exceeded jurisdiction—Matter remanded to Family Court for decision afresh. Disposition: Leave to appeal granted to the extent of High Court’s act of decreeing the suit—Appeal allowed to that extent—Impugned judgment set aside partially—Case remanded to Family Court for decision afresh—Stay application dismissed as infructuous.

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: (a) Family Law – Dower – Jurisdiction of Family Court---Family Courts Act, 1964, S. 5---Dower (Haq Mahr)---Claim of immovable property as dower---Whether Family Court has jurisdiction---Respondent (wife) filed a suit for recovery of dower based on an agreement executed by her deceased husband in his lifetime, whereby he gifted 12 acres of land to her---Petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the Family Court, arguing that the matter pertained to an agreement and should have been adjudicated by a Civil Court---Held, Family Courts have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and decide cases regarding dower, whether in cash, moveable, or immovable property, as explicitly mentioned in Section 5 of the Family Courts Act, 1964---Reliance placed on Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Messrs Rashid Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. (2024 SCMR 1816).(b) Family Law – Proof of Dower Agreement – Concurrent Findings of Fact---Evidentiary value of agreement to gift property as dower---Whether claim of dower based on an agreement was sufficiently proved---Trial Court, Appellate Court, and High Court concurrently held that the respondent successfully proved the execution of the agreement, producing the scribe and marginal witnesses who testified in her favor---Petitioners failed to produce any contrary evidence, nor did they request a forensic comparison of the deceased’s signatures---Held, where concurrent findings of three courts are based on cogent evidence, the Supreme Court will not interfere in the absence of a legal infirmity or jurisdictional error---Reliance placed on Fozia Mazhar v. Additional District Judge, Jhang (PLD 2024 SC 771).(c) Civil Procedure – Burden of Proof – Failure to Challenge Evidence---Evidentiary burden on party alleging forgery---Effect of failure to produce rebuttal evidence---Petitioners claimed the agreement was forged and backdated but did not produce any independent witness, handwriting expert, or documentary evidence to support their claim---They withdrew their application for the production of the stamp vendor who issued the document---Held, mere allegations of forgery without supporting evidence cannot rebut a duly proved agreement, especially when attesting witnesses confirm its execution---Reliance placed on Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Messrs Rashid Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. (2024 SCMR 1816).(d) Appellate Jurisdiction – Scope of Supreme Court’s Review---Interference with concurrent findings of fact---Scope of Supreme Court’s appellate review---Held, where three forums, including the High Court, have concurrently found the evidence to be credible and the claim legally valid, the Supreme Court will not reappraise the evidence unless a manifest legal or procedural irregularity is identified---Petitioners failed to point out any jurisdictional defect or misreading of evidence warranting interference---Reliance placed on Fozia Mazhar v. Additional District Judge, Jhang (PLD 2024 SC 771).---- Disposition:Petition dismissed – Leave to appeal refused.Findings of the three lower courts upheld – Agreement validly proved; Family Court had jurisdiction.