Mst. SAIRA ZULFIQAR Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN

ORDER

SYED SHAHEEN MASUD RIZVI, J .---Through this writ petition Mst. Saira Zulfiqar has challenged the judgment and decree, dated 18-4-2006, passed by learned Judge Family Court, Multan whereby she was held to be entitled to recover the dower amount of Rs.20,00,000 and it was held that the gold ornaments weighing 50 tolas, agricultural land and 1/2 share in residential house situated in Gulgashat Colony Multan were undertaken to be given in lieu of the dower of Rs.20,00,000 and not in addition to it.

2. Thus feeling aggrieved of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge Family Court, petitioner filed an appeal before learned District Judge, Multan which was decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan vide judgment and decree, dated 17-10-2006 who upheld the findings of the learned Judge Family Court and dismissed her appeal, hence, the instant writ petition.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that two Courts below have committed serious illegality by misreading the contents of Nikah Nama relating to the dower and have misinterpreted the relevant column in this regard and that Iqrar Nama entered into between the petitioner and respondent, dated 18-9-2001, Mark-K regarding "Haq Mehr and other comments" stands incorporated in the Nikah Nama.

4. The learned counsel of the respondent has admitted that respondent contracted second marriage with the petitioner as such it explains the heavy amount of dower as well as the gold ornaments and other properties mentioned in the Iqrar Nama Mark-K, dated 18-9-2001 and Nikah Nama Mark-A.

5. The two Courts below have not taken into account the Iqrar Nama, dated 18-9-2001 Mark-K which document stands unrebutted in the evidence and, therefore, their contents cannot be denied. The learned counsel for the respondent has admitted that till to date, the respondent has not challenged ex part decree passed against him by the learned Judge Family Court as well as that of learned Additional District Judge. The contents of Iqrar Nama Mark-K stands incorporated in the Nikah Nama Mark-A and the Nikah Nama under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 being registered document with the NIKAH Registrar has a different status than any other document and that in column Nos.15 and 16 of Nikahnama it has clearly and unambiguously been incorporated that the respondent will abide by the conditions, given in Iqrar Nama, dated 18-9-2001, for the ready reference the entry in relevant column Nos.15 and 16 of Nikahnama Mark-A is reproduced below:

As such the Iqrar Nama Mark-K and its contents have become integral part of Nikahnama Mark-A and as such the contents/entries in the Nikahnama are to be read in conjunction with the Iqrar Nama Mark-K, dated 18-9-2001. Further the marriage being a contract, the parties to the marriage are at liberty to enter into the terms of their choice. Two Courts below cannot interpret the said terms at their own when such interpretation specifically stands negated by the contents of Nikah Nama Mark-A and Iqrar Nama, dated 18-9-2001 Mark-K. These two documents clearly reveal that amount of dower of Rs.20,00,000 was independent in itself and the property and gold ornaments were in addition to the said amount of Haq-ul-Mehar. Thus the findings of both the learned Courts below that gold ornaments and the property were in lieu of amount of Haq-ul-Mehar stands totally falsified by evidence on the record. As such two Courts below erroneously and illegally held that the petitioner is not entitled to the property mentioned in the Nikah Nama Mark-A and Iqrar Nama, dated 18-9-2001, Mark-K.

6. Thus this petition is accepted, the findings of the learned Judge Family Court and that of learned Additional District Judge, in impugned judgments and decrees, dated 18-4-2006 and-17-10-2006 respectively are set aside to the extent of the properties mentioned therein. The petitioner is held entitled to the properties and the gold ornaments as envisaged in the Nikah Nama Mark-A read with Iqrar Nama Mark-K, dated 18-9-2001.

M.H./S-68/L Petition allowed.