AMEER ALI KHAN vs KISHWAR BASHIR and another

SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH. J.---Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against judgment dated 25-10- 2001, passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No,19061 of 2000.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a suit for recovery of Rs,10,00,000, as dower, was filed by respondent No,1 against the petitioner on 15-12-1998, wherein she stated that she was married with the petitioner on 7-6-1993 and out of wedlock a daughter and a son were. Born. She further submitted that at the time of Nikah an amount of Rs,500 was fixed as dower but the petitioner through an Iqrarnama/agreement dated 20-3-1994, enhanced the dower of respondent No,1 to Rs,10,00,000, in presence of the parties. The petitioner divorced respondent No,1 on 10-12-1998, therefore, she filed a suit for recovery of Rs,10,00,000 downer money. The respondent contested the suit by filing a written statement. The, learned Judge Family Court decreed the suit with costs vide judgment dated 12-5-2000. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Gujrat, vide judgment dated 22-6-2000. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgments and decrees, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No, 19061 of 2000, which was also dismissed by the learned Lahore High Court, vide impugned judgment dated 25-10-2001. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.

3. We have heard Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Wahla, learned counsel for the petitioner at length, who, inter alia, contended that respondent No,1 prepared a forged/fictitious agreement; that the learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court without accurate appreciation of facts and law, dismissed the petition of the petitioner; that the respondent being a greedy lady had prepared a forged agreement in order to receive a sum of Rs,10,00,000 from the petitioner, that the impugned judgment is not in consonance with law, therefore, leave to appeal may be granted.

4. Conversely, Ms. Imrana Baloch, learned counsel for the respondent No,1 vehemently opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that no controversy in the Nikahnama of Rs,500 have been entered as dower; that subsequently the parties have entered into an agreement dated 20-3-1994, whereby the petitioner had agreed voluntarily to enhance the dower money; that the agreement was properly witnessed and notarized by Notary Public; that the agreement was executed with full knowledge and consent of the petitioner, which was not even specifically denied in the written statement and that the learned High Court has rightly dismissed the petition.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and minutely perused the material available on record. Admitted, the document/agreement in question was properly proved by the witnesses of respondent No, 1, therefore, her suit was decreed by the trial Court and the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat. The signature of the petitioner on his Identity Card matched with the signature on the disputed agreement, which both are similar and signed in the same handwriting. In this background, it would be advantageous to reproduce the relevant paragraph of the impugned judgment, which reads as under:- "7. From the above observations it appears that respondent No, I made every effort to have the signatures of the petitioner compared with those inscribed on the agreement in dispute, but the petitioner was responsible for failure of the Handwriting Expert to give a proper finding in this behalf, therefore, he is himself to blame if the signatures were not proved by the Handwriting Expert. Throughout the litigation his conduct was evasive and he neither categorically denied the agreement nor he raised specific allegations of fraud or forgery. The document was properly proved by the witnesses of respondent No,1, therefore, the suit of respondent No,1 was decreed and the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by respondent No,2. As an abundant caution I myself examined the signatures of the petitioner on the copy of his identity card, which is available on the file, with his signatures on the disputed agreement, which both are similar and signed in the same handwriting. The petitioner in his cross-examination had admitted that he has means and is able to pay Rs, One million, therefore, the amount cannot even be termed unreasonable.

6. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that the impugned judgment of the learned High Court is in consonance with the law laid down by this Court and there is no misreading, or non-reading of the material or jurisdictional error.

7. Resultantly, this petition is without merit and substance, which is hereby dismissed along with the listed application and leave to appeal refused.