NASIR ALI alias KHIZAR HAYAT vs Mst. TAJ BEGUM and others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that had set aside an appellate court's order regarding the return of land in a family dispute. The respondent had obtained a decree for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula from a Family Court, which was maintained on appeal, though the appellate court additionally ordered the respondent to return ten acres of land previously gifted to her. The High Court reversed this, holding that the respondent was not required to return the land, while granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue a separate claim for the land. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its interpretation of the appealability of the Family Court decree and the propriety of the appellate court's order regarding the land transfer. The Supreme Court found no legal infirmity in the High Court's decision, noting that the evidence was insufficient to determine if the land transfer was consideration for marriage. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that disputed property claims should be resolved by a court of competent jurisdiction.
- Is a decree for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula appealable before the District Judge or Additional District Judge under the Punjab Family Courts Act 1964?
- Can a court in a family matter order the return of property gifted to a spouse without clear evidence that the transfer was consideration for the marriage?
- Section 14(2), Punjab Family Courts Act 1964
' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- The petitioner seeks grant of leave to appeal from judgment, dated 10-9-2003, passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench in Writ Petition No,1760 of 2003/BWP.
2. The respondent Mst. Taj Begum instituted, against the petitioner Nasir Ali alias Khizar Hayat, a suit for dissolution of marriage, which was decreed by the Judge, Family Court, Minchinabad, District Bahawalnagar, by judgment and decree, dated 14-2-2003 on the basis of Khula. The said respondent was directed to refrain from claiming all dowery articles, ornaments and maintenance allowance. The petitioner filed an appeal thereagainst, which was partly accepted by judgment and decree, dated 14-2-2003 by the Additional District judge, Bahawalnagar and the respondent lady was directed to return ten acres of land to the petitioner which had been given to her by the father of the petitioner. The decree for dissolution of marriage was maintained. The respondent moved Writ Petition No,1760 of 2003, which was allowed by the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench , by the impugned judgment, dated 10-9-2003. It was, however, observed that the petitioner and other legal heirs late Muhammad Amin, were at liberty to establish their claim regarding transfer of 10 acres of land through appropriate proceedings.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the High Court did not take correct view in holding that the judgment and decree, dated 14-2-2003 for dissolution of marriage was not appealable before the District Judge/Additional District Judge by the virtue of section 14(2) of the Punjab Family Courts Act, 1964. It was next contended that the evidence on record clearly proved that the alienation of land measuring 10 acres by the deceased father of the petitioner in favour of the respondent lady was for no other consideration than that of being the duly wedded wife of the petitioner. Therefore, the Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar was justified in accepting the appeal of the petitioner with the direction to the respondent to relinquish 10 acres of land coupled with other conditions as laid down by the Family Court. The impugned judgment of the High Court reversing the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court was not sustainable at law.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and have also perused the judgments of all the Courts along with the available record with his assistance. From the evidence produced by the parties, it is not clear whether the alienation, of 10 acres of land by father of the petitioner was as a consideration of marriage of the petitioner with the respondent or otherwise.
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court was justified in adopting a safe course to leave the dispute regarding transfer of 10 acres of land for determination by a Court of competent jurisdiction. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court.
4. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.