INAYATULLAH Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld a decree for the dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula. The petitioner, the husband, challenged the lower appellate court's decision, which had overturned the Family Court's dismissal of the wife's suit for dissolution and the decree for restitution of conjugal rights in the husband's favor. The core legal question was whether the appellate court erred in failing to order the return of a house, which the husband claimed was given in lieu of the dower amount, upon granting the Khula decree. The Supreme Court observed that the appellate court had already directed the wife to deposit the dower amount of Rs. 15,000 as zar-e-khula. Noting that the High Court had correctly identified that the value of the house was equivalent to the dower amount, the Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the lower court's decision. Consequently, the Court held that the financial adjustments made were sufficient and refused leave to appeal, thereby affirming the dissolution of marriage.
- Can a husband claim the return of property given in lieu of dower upon the dissolution of marriage by Khula?
- Is a decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula subject to interference if the court has already ordered the deposit of the dower amount as zar-e-khula?
ORDER
SHAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑ The petitioner before us was married to Mst.Parveen Akhtar respondent No.2 on 6‑10‑1978. On 26‑4‑1982. She filed a suit for dissolution of marriage on a number of grounds including that of Khula. On his part, the petitioner filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. By an order dated 10‑10‑84, the family Court dismissed the suit for dissolution of marriage and decreed the suit for restitution of conjugal rights. Mst. Parveen Akhtar filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge. By his judgment dated 27‑7‑1985, the learned Additional District Judge accepted the appeal and granted the decree to her on the ground of Khula. He also set aside the decree passed in the suit filed by the petitioner.
2. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court to call in question the legality of the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge but without any success. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we do not think that any case for interfering with the decree for dissolution of marriage has been made out. The main grievance of the petitioner is that at the time of Nikah with Mst. Parveen Akhtar the dower amount was fixed a' Rs.15,000. To discharge the liability in this regard he had given her a house. While granting the decree to her the learned Additional District Judge should have directed the return of the house to him. It is to be noticed that in the decree a direction was given by the learned Additional District Judge to Mst. Parveen Akhtar to deposit Rs.15,000 in Court by a certain date as zar‑e‑khula. It was noticed by the learned Single Judge before whom the same grie vance was made that the value of the house was the same as the dower amount. In the circumstances, we do not think that any case for interference by this Court has been made out. Leave to appeal is refused.
M.Y.H./I‑46/S Leave to appeal refused.