MUHAMMAD HABIB ULLAH vs NAJAM BIBI and 2 others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which had dismissed a writ petition challenging the recovery of dowry granted to the respondent wife. The petitioner, having previously filed suits for dissolution of marriage, maintenance, and recovery of dower and dowry, contested the validity of the Nikahnama. Specifically, the petitioner alleged that the entry of one lac rupees as deferred dower in the Nikahnama was a result of fraud and forgery, asserting that the actual dower was only five hundred rupees. The core legal question was whether the Nikahnama could be disregarded as a forged document based on the petitioner's unsubstantiated allegations. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Nikahnama is a conclusive document unless proven otherwise. Finding no evidence on record to support the claim of forgery, the Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, affirming the respondent's entitlement to the dowry. The judgment reinforces the principle that a Nikahnama carries presumptive evidentiary value and cannot be set aside on mere assertions of fraud without substantive proof.
- Is a Nikahnama considered a conclusive document regarding the terms of marriage unless proven otherwise?
- Can a party successfully challenge the entries in a Nikahnama based solely on allegations of fraud without supporting evidence?
- Does the appellate court have the authority to uphold a decree for recovery of dowry based on the entries contained in a valid Nikahnama?
MENT RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J.- Facts in brief are that the petitioner got married with Mst. Najma Bibi, respondent No. 1. On account of certain differences between the parties, petitioner filed a suit for dissolution of marriage and another suit for maintenance, yet another suit for recovery of dower and recovery of dowry. The learned Judge Family Court dissolved the marriage between the parties. However, other suits were dismissed. In appeal filed by respondent lady, she was also held entitled to recovery of dowry. The petitioner assailed the said order before the High Court by way of writ petition which was dismissed in litnine on 14.2.2000, therefore, the present petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that at the time of marriage, rupees 500 were fixed as dower but the petitioner on account of fraud and forgery added in another column rupees one lac as deferred dower.
3. We have heard the learned counsel at length and gone through the file as well as relevant column of Nikahnama. It is clear in two different columns where dower money is mentioned. In one column prompt dower is mentioned as rupees 500 hundred and in other column, which is for deferred amount, rupees one lac is mentioned. By no stretches of imagination, it can he held that it is a forged document. Nikahnama itself is conclusive unless proved otherwise. In the absence of anything on record which could persuade us to hold that Nikahnama is forged, we cannot give any other finding except to endorse the view expressed by the learned Judge in chambers as well as learned Additional District Judge. There is no merit in this petition which is, accordingly, dismissed.