IN THE COURT OF AMIR HUSSAIN.

JUDGE FAMILY COURT. I(AROR.

F a m i l y S u i t N o . 2 2 1 - F Co f 2 0 1 8 .
Date of Institution .L4 .09.20 1B "
Date of Decision2l.OL.2O2O.

Amina Kouser daughter of Ala-ud-Dain .Plaintiff

v
Asad Ali son of Akbar AIi..... Defendant

SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF DELIVERY EXPENSES

MATNTENANCE ALLOWANCE @ RS.5O00/AI{-p pOWRY
A R T T C L E SR S . 6 2 8 1 9 0 / - .

Present: Malik Muhammad Shoaib advocate learned

counsel for the plaintiffs.
Ch. Rafaqat Ali Tipu advocate, learned counsel
for defendant.

k'-EEF
r-s@
d
JUDGMENT: I

frga.,\'
,,s @. \
i' 'rfi -
'?i t :

the instant family suit, plaintiff has

-_;;ftli

Through
1{'li :g
Ti]'#l,Sl.
*-
-*: i.D
.:_!, g_,,72il a
1- !' 't1}h
5;+$
claimed for the recovery of delivery expenses ,for value of
l"r
!":
"*d4

Yi.':" Rs.SOOO/-
Rs.50328 I -, maintenance allowance @ per

month, and dgwry articles for value of Rs.628I9O/ - from the

defendant. It is revealed that marriage of the parties was

conducted on 08.04 .2OI7 and plaintiff started to perform

her matrimonial obligations by residing in the house of

defendant; that out of their wedlock one issue namely Huria

Jannat u,as born who is alive and in the custody of plaintiff

 No. 1; that relationship between the parties remained cordial

in the early days of their marriage and after that defendant

has started to beat the plaintiff upon petty matters; that the

defendant has ousted the plain_tiff eight months before the

institution of this suit in three wearing apparels. Plaintiff

has given the birth of a baby Horia Janat and the delivery
'lner
expenses Rs.5032S l- were borne by father. The

defendant has not paid any maintenance allornance to the

plaintiffs since her forcible desertion and. she has been

residing in her parents house; that dowry articles of plaintiff

for value of Rs.62819O f - are in possession of defendant who

is reluctant to d"eliver the same upon her demand. She has

(.,* F{tr.-*

ft,ffi"6a. claimed from the defendant delivery expenses, maintenance

o?,rliit(. ) allowance, recovery of dowry articles but he refused, hence,
F ;11l" \-/
rr hr.-
'F

4J i'-j. ii '';-r't
U i:,:i';F
?t \:l t.r'.t
ru
..^, f.'i;S
this suit.
I {'H
,i
,.,i. r.d
iilL{

2. On other hand, defendant has filed contesting

written statement on 26.11.2018 by raising many legal as

well as factual objections. He mentioned that he never

forcibly ousted the plaintiff, nor has beated her. Plaintiff

No.1hasleft his housewith her freeconsentthreemonths

before the institution of this suit in order to meet her

parents. She has left his house in his absence by taking

away 4-tolas gold and cash amount Rs.600000/- alongwith

ten unstitched suits. When the defendant returned to his

home, he found plaintiff as missing alongwith dowry articles

etc. Therefore, he went to the house of her parents and

\---- --
 asked to the plaintiff for the return of his goldr etc but she ,L.- --..
*t.

has deserted upon the asking of her parents. She repeatedly

asked to him for Tlaq and resultantly, he has glven Tlaq on

79.O7.2OL8, upon the asking of plaintiff. Minor Huria Janat

was born in hospital but during the stay of plaintiff No.l

with defendant and he has paid all the delivery expenses. He

has been paying maintenance allowance to the plaintiff

during her desertion period. He has made efforts for the

rehabilitation of 'plaintiff in his house. The plaintiff was not

given any dowry articles, nor she has brought with her at

the time of her "Rukhsati" but story of plaintifif is planted

one, therefore, her suit be dismissed.

3. out of the divergent pleadings of the parties

following issues were framed vide order dated 2r.Lz.zol8:-

';
t::l

HM.T SSUES.
,*!L\
' '".ry
* '
/\ rrt
"Y: .".' .'"t5-
"-* lj'. ;'u'jii
i . l ' . . ' ; . : ' .t . 1 . whether plaintiff No.1 is entitled to recover delivery
*.:t'tF
r;t
,'*1
*-$s
expenditures of plaintiff No.z? Opp
? i;ip 2 . whether the plaintiffs
!c
,-.i
fr#{'
r_.$. are entitled to recover
maintenance allowance from the defendant. if so. at
what rate and for what period? Opp

3 . whether plaintiff No.l is entitled to recover dowry

articles as per list annexed with the plaint or
Rs.628190 /- in lieuthereof as prayed for? Opp

4 . Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file

this suit? OPD '

5 . whether the suit of the plaintiffs is based on malafide

and the same is liable to be dismissed? OpD

6 . Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the court with

cleanhands?OPD
7 . Relief.
 4. After framing of issues, both parties were

directed to produce their respective evidence. In evidence

Mst. Amina Kouser appeared as PW.l and Sami Ullah as

PW.2. Both the PWs recorded their statement through

affidavits Bx.P.A and trx.P.B. In documentary cvid"ence,

plaintiff has produced following documents;

* Nikkah Nama as Ex.P.C,

* Iqrar Nama of Tlaq nama as Ex.P.D,

+ Original tlaq nama as Ex.P.E,

* Receipts of dowry articles and slips as mark-A to

mark-E.

5. On other hand, defendant appeared a s D W . 1 ,

HTff
t{*+\
ll-,&.; ! Nasir Ali as DW.2 and no documentary evidence is produced.
* ['+:'i';
/r c.'t

L'F'.AI '!t : by him.

r', lr=lt-
r{:!O ..;
1- 1 0 , " i
t,,.;,
6. Arguments heard and record perused. My issue
c,:"li
ssf
,4'

wise findings are as under:

ISSUE NO.1.

Whether pl4intiff No.1 _is entitle.d to recover delivery

expenditures of plaintiff No.2? OPP

7. Onus to prove this issue was placed upon the

plaintiff. Plaintiff has produced her oral as well as

documentary evidence in support of her version for the

recovery of delivery expenditures of Rs.5O32Sl- incurred by

her at the time of birth of Huria Jannat. She has mentioned

that she was forcibly ousted by defendant eight months

 before institution of this suit, which means lihat she was

1 that she
ousted on 14.01.2018. She has mentioned as PW'
desertion on
was pregnant of three months at the time of heri

plaintiff has produced dpcuments of

14.06.20 1B. The
mark-E'
delivery expenses etc in the shape of mark-D and
'20 18' It is
Mark-E reveals the date of discharge on 30'03
pregnant of
very strange to mention here that plaintiff was
the time of
three months in the month of January 2018, at
pregnant of three
her admitted .desertion and she was

that time but after just z',h months, on

months at
.Jannat.
3O.03.2O18 she has given the birth of minor Huria
contents of
The evid"ence of plaintiff is not matched with the
to prove
her plaint. The plaintiff remained completely failed -\,
;
in the .l
this issue in her favour. Her evidence is not reliable
ti'{T",fi
,:TIffi,V shape of mark-D and mark-tr. So, this issue is decided
,,rf {il e
: F . ' i l q * ] a

:'.,.'l:: G*u
'lj,::i-#*
against the Plaintiff.
' i"J ,.:,'-r lgq
frj :..1s
i{'Y. P"
res+ ISSUE NO.2.
h*s
Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to recove maintenange
allowance from the defendant so. at what rate and
for what Period? OPP

B. onus of this issue was placed upon the plaintiffs'

.l.he defendant has denied the same in his wrirtten statement

and stated-ifr*t plaintiff went to meet her parents in his

of. his
absence and never returned to his house despite

given Tlaq pl.aintiff on

repeated efforts. FIe ultimately ,to
left the house of
19,07,2018, which means that plaintiff has
 !

the defendant on 14.O7.2O18 and after six months, she was

given divorce by the defendant. The defendant has admittcd

in his written statement that she has left his housct three

months before the institution of this suit whereas in his

cross examination, he has d,eposedthat ptairitilf rn'ent to her

parents house one month before the issuance of Tlaq. It is

transpired that suit was instituted on 14 .09.20 1tJ and"

according to his version, she has left his house on

L4.O6.2OIS. It is further transpired that Tlaq llx.P.tr & D

was given to the plaintiff on 19.O7.2018. His evidcnce totally

matches with his defence taken in his written statemc;nt that

plaintiff has left his house three months beforc the

institution of this suit in the month of .June 20lB. Flowever,

to the extent of self desertion of plaintiff, defendant has nclt

prod.uced any independ"ent evidence, nor any cviclencc that

he has made efforts for plaintiff's reconciliation. F{c has

given Tlaq trx.P.D & tr to the plaintiff. He has not provc:d that

plaintiff was disobedient wife. He has taken twcl stances in

his defence about the desertion of plaintiff. First one that

plaintiffhasleft his housein his absence sccond

whercas
one that ptaintiff went to her parents with her: brottrcr. It is

settled principle of law and Shariah that an obcdicnt wife is

entitled for her maintenance allowance. Plaintiff has provcd

her obedient by giving the birth of minor Huria .Jannat.

Secondly, tlaq was given in written form Ex.P.D & trx.P.tr to

plaintiff on 19.07.2018 and no evidence is producr:d that

,
r:l@siei.@r;
 plaintiff has asked for tlaq. Plaintiffs have claimed
maintenance allowance @ Rs.SO6O/- per lmonth since
14'06.2018 till the Iddat period of three months,
Defendant
has mentioned in his evidence that he earns R$. rzooo
/_ per
month as employee (CRo) in Telenor compan5r
but plaintiff
has taken a version that he earns Rs.BOooo
/- per month.
The defendant has taken specific plea regarding
his salary
but he has not produced any salary slip in his
evid,ence
which means that he has withheld his best evidence
in order
to conceal the real facts from this court that
a just and
proper deciJion courc be passed. Therefclre,
a negative
inference is drawn against him that he receives
more salary
than his defence regarding the arnount of salary
as cRo in
Telenor Company taken by him. He has not p,roduced
any
rebuttal evi'Cence against the claim of plaintiff,,
nor against
the claim of minor plaintiff No.2. During arguments
lcarned
collnsel for the defendant has stated that defendant
is readv
to give maintenance allowance of minor plaintiff No.2
according to his financial means. The defendant
has not
denied his relationship with the plaintiff No.2. so, by
keeping in view the above discussion, it is trahspired
that
plaintiffs have completely proved this issue against the

defendant, hence, plaintiff No. 1 is ,entitled to

receive her
maintenance allowance @ Rs.5000/- per rnonth since
14'06 '2oIg, three months before the institution
of this suit
tilt her Iddat period alongwith r0% annual
increaseand
 plaintiff No.2 is entitled for her maintenance allowance (cD,
Rs'500O/- per month alongwith IOo/,annual increase since

the month of August,20lB tilr her marriage. This issue is

decided accordingly

ISSUE NO.3.

to recove r do
articlgs as qer list annexed with the plaint G

9- onus to prove this issue was placed upon the

plaintiff. Plaintiff has claimed for the return of hcr d owry

articles for value of Rs.62g lgo / -. she has produced

documentary evid.ence of d"owry articles lrom mark-A to

mark-c. she is a teacher by profession and defendant is

EruO
F,
'P
fi) rsrk
-n --)
i1.'1tin
admittedly an employee in telenor company. The

has denied in his written statement from the

defendant

delivery of
"fl :-: ,(tt'-
ilr *,.h* dowry articles by plaintiff parents at the time
t*'.I Gjrl of her
rfd r-*; 1+.'1,
l"r %'
,::-, s'!i Rukhsati but in his examination in chief he as DW
=r1
,J*
4:tY .2 and his
witness DW. 1 Nasir Ali have deposed that all thc
dowry
articles were taken away by plaintiff's parents and
by his
uncle Qamar ud Din etc. The defendant has deposed beyond

his pleadings which is not acceptable in the eye of raw.

He
has taken different stances from the pleadings of this
suit.
Moreover, DW. 1 Nasir Ali has admitte,C that Barat
went in
the hol-lse of plaintiff at Cars and Prado. Dowry articlcs
were
brought into the house of defendant some days before
the
marriage of parties. DW. t has further said that hc has
seen
L---,

dowry articles in the house of defendantlbride groom. His

statement of cross examination is reproduced as under:

DW. I Nasir Ali has denied from the conduct of any

Punchayat before him, which means that defendant has not

produced any evidence regarding the constitution of

Punchayat regarding the return of dowry articles to

plaintiff's parents etc. DW.2 defendant has deposed that

dowry articles were returned to plaintiff upon the next day of

:
tlaq but no writing is shclwn as prepared about ithe return of

dowry articles. It is clear crystal that defendant has taken a

6r '
kT+'hf ) contradictory defence in his evidence. By considering this i

$iFV
"::ri * 4
4F \:":
;r.}..

l*,,ir:,5 principle, laid down by August Supreme Court of Pakistan in 3

,
'n l;- :.1:.;l

li4*j ii" lt:

many reported. judgments,
F-;,P
r:;'
tr ;,.i+* this court is of the view that
?i'{39
F r-rt
Hffi parents always gives dowry articles to theiir daughters

according to their financial status at the time of their

Rukhsati. They start collecting dowry articles for their

daughters since their birth and give same to their daughters

at the time of their Ruklrsati.

10. Plaintiff No.1 has claimed for the retiurn of dowry

articles for value of Rs 628190 I -. The defendant has not

brought cln the record any evidence about the weak linancial

status 0f plaintiff'sparents.Now the questionof gold

 10

and touchy
ornarnents is concerned, women are very keen
keep in their
about their gold ornaments which they always
plaintiff has
own custody, therefore,' it is not possible thftt
Hence'
Ieft her gold ornaments in the house of defendant'

to the extent of gold ornaments is

the claim of plaintiff

dismissed". The consumable items like clothes,

hereby
with the
crockery etc has been consumed by plaintiff

passage of time. so, by keeping in view the above discussion,

plaintiff is entitled to recover dowry articles except gold

ornaments, clothes etc or its alternate value of Rs'4ooooo/-

(four lac). This issue is decided accordingly.

ISSUE NO.4.

Whether intiffs have ttQ cause of action to file

this suit? OPD

the
11. onus to prove this issue was placed upon

3 deals also
defendant. My findings given in issues No .7, 2&
upon
with this issue. The finding of this issue are dependcnt
Lreen given
the findings of issues No.l, 2 & 3 which have
in thc tight of
above, Hence, this issue is decided accordingry

findings of issue No.1 , 2 &'3 given supra'

ISSUE NO.s.

Whether he suit of the laintif@

malafide and the same :is liable to be disrhissed?
OPD
 1_1

12. onus to prove this issue was placed upon the

defendant. My findings given in issues No .1, z & g deals also

with this issue. The finding of this issue are dependent upon

the findings of issues No.l, 2 & 3 which have been given

above. F{ence, this issue is decided accordingly in the light of

findings of issue No. 1, Z &" 3 given supra.

ISSUE NO.6.

Whether the plaintiffs

with clean hands? OPD

13. onus to prove this issue was placed upon the

defendant. No evidence is produced by the defendant, nor

this issue islpressed by him in final arguments. I{ence, this

issue has become redundant.

fftr f-
_tr,LU
:- f,i,' fl"q+'?r--
RELIEF.
ri"l l;r *iln '
na ,-"' .:*;a

'' I;ffiT
i-l ;:;irh,n

r"l ili }. 14. The result of findings is sum marrzed as under;

li'P- o

' Plaintiff No.1 is not entitled to receive delivery

expenditures allegedly incurred upon the birth of plaintiff

No.2.

t Plaintiff No.1 is entitled to receive her maintenance

allowance @ Rs.Soo0/- per month since i4.a6.2olg three

months before the institution of this suit till hef Iddat period

alongwith IO% annual increase and plaintiff No.2 is entitled

for her maintenance allowance @ Rs.S000/" per' month

 12

alongwith rovo annuar increase

since the month of August
2018 till her marriage.

' Plaintiff is entitled to recover

dowry articres exccpt gold
ornaments, clothes etc or its
arternate value of Rs. 4ooooo
/_
(four lac). No order as to
cost. Decree sheet be prepared
accordingly' File be consigned
to the record room aflter its
due completion.
n
Announced: tv)
Amir H6sain,
27.Ot.2020:
Judge Family Court,
Karor.
Certified, judgment consists of twelve
pages and each page
dictated, read, corrected and
signed by me.

n
Judge.",h#,rurr,
Karor.