MUHAMMAD BOOTA vs Mst. AMANAT BIBI
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's civil revision arising from a suit for the recovery of money. The respondent, the ex-wife of the petitioner, filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 18,300 representing the price of her goods and property left in the house of the petitioner following her divorce. The trial court decreed the claim to the extent of Rs. 4,000, which the District Judge enhanced to Rs. 14,600 on appeal, and the High Court subsequently dismissed the petitioner's civil revision. The core legal question was whether the civil court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit on the contention that the claim involved dower falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of a Family Court. The Supreme Court held that the civil court had proper jurisdiction because the suit was strictly for the recovery of the price of the respondent's personal property rather than a claim for dower. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that concurrent findings of fact regarding the price of the goods warrant no interference.
- Does a civil court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the recovery of personal property left in a former husband's house after divorce?
- Whether a claim for the price of goods left behind constitutes a claim for dower falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of a Family Court?
- Can findings of fact regarding the price of goods be interfered with in civil revision or leave to appeal?
ORDER
1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore Multan Bench dated 29th July, 1984 whereby civil revision of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. ' Briefly the facts are that the respondent Mst. Amanat Bibi ex-wife of the petitioner filed a suit for recovery of Rs,18,300 against the petitioner on account of the price of her goods left in the house of her former husband when she was turned out of his house as a result of divorce pronounced on her. The trial Court decreed her claim only to the extent of Rs,4,000. Thereupon both the parties filed two separate appeals before the District Judge who vide his consolidated judgment dismissed the appeal of the petitioner but partly accepted that of the respondent by enhancing the decretal amount to Rs,14,600. Thereupon the petitioner challenged the aforesaid judgment by way of civil revision which had been dismissed by learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Mull an Bench, Multan. Hence the present petition.
3. ' The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the civil Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain and to decide the suit of the respondent as it included price of the ornaments which had been given to the respondent by the petitioner by way of dower. According to the learned counsel the claim of the respondent fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of a Judge Family Court. This argument of the learned counsel has no force because in the suit of the respondent as correctly observed by the High Court no claim at all had been made for the payment of dower but the respondents suit was merely for payment of price of her property left in the house of the petitioner. Therefore the Civil Judge had the jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the suit. In any case so far as the price of her goods was concerned this is a finding of fact which had been decided against the petitioner and therefore no interference is called for in the impugned judgment of the High Court.
4. ' In that view of the matter this petition is dismissed.
5. ' Leave to .