LIAQUAT ALI vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, NAROWAL And 2 Other

ORDER

MUMAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.---This petition for leave to appeal directed against order dated 4-4- 1995 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, arises from the facts that on 25-7-1983 Mst. Akbari respondent No.3 filed suit for recovery (possession) of five acres of land given to her as dower vide Kabinname Exh.P.1 and Nikah Nama Exh.P.3 at the the of her marriage with Liaquat Ali petitioner on 4-12-1974, before Judge, Family Court, Narowal. The suit was resisted. Preliminary objections with regard to the jurisdiction of the Court, limitation, and payment of proper court-fee were raised by the petitioner. He also denied to have executed Kabinnama Exh.P.1 and Nikahnama Exh.P.3 as well.

The trial Court framed as many as seven issues. Parties led their evidence. Finding Kabinnama Exh.P.1 and Nikahnama Exh.P.3 as genuine, and believing the evidence produced in support thereof and rejecting the preliminary objections raised by the petitioner, the trial Court vide its judgment dated 6-7-1988 decreed the suit. The appeal filed by the petitioner against judgment and decree of Judge Family Court, Narowal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Narowal on 23--6- 1994. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a Constitutional petition in Lahore High Court, Lahore questioning the legality and correctness of the decree passed against him, which to was dismissed on 4-4-1995

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Judge Family Court had no jurisdiction to pass a decree for possession of the land allegedly given as dower to a wife and that the respondent has hopelessly failed to prove that the suit land was given to her by the petitioner as consideration for the marriage. Mr. Muhammad Zahid Abbasi, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/caveator has supported the impugned judgment.

3.We have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties carefully. We do not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. A plain reading of section 5 of the Family Courts Act, 1964 (W.P. Act XXXV of 1964) will show that the Judge Family Court alone was competent to entertain a suit for the recovery of the property given as dower to the wife at the the of marriage. Learned counsel has failed to quote any provision of law restraining Judge Family Court to entertain suit for the recovery of immovable property given as dower to a wife. The three Courts below have believed the oral evidence as well as Kabinnama Exh.P.1 and Nikahnama Exh.P.3.

Learned counsel has failed to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence by the Courts below. The Judge Family Court has not flouted any relevant provision of law either Learned Additional District Judge and the High Court as well were fully justified in dismissing the appeal and the Constitution petition respectively.

4. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused and the petition is dismissed.