You are on page 1of 4




Family Suit No. ____________/2002

In re: -
Mst. Nausheen VS. Nisar Ahmad



Respectfully Sheweth: -
Preliminary Objections: -

1. That the marriage of plaintiff along-with defendant was

solemnized according to Shara-e-Muhammadi on 26.1.2001
in lieu of total Haq Maher of 5½ tolas golden ornaments
valuing Rs. 40,000/- (forty thousand rupees). Defendant paid
the Haq Maher promptly on 26.1.01 to the plaintiff in shape
of golden ornaments consisting of Haar, Kantey, Nath, Tikka
and a ring which fact gains strength from the perusal of
column No. 13 & 14 of Nikahnama of which the plaintiff is
signatory. It is a settled law that once a dower is paid the
liability of dower is satisfied and wife is not entitled to claim
the same. Therefore, in view of above facts, the present suit is
not maintainable and hence, merits dismissal.

1. That para No. 1 of the plaint is correct to this extent that

marriage in between plaintiff and defendant took place on
26.1.01 in lieu of 5½ tolas of golden ornaments valuing Rs.
40,000/-, which were paid promptly by defendant to plaintiff
on 26.1.01 in shape of golden ornaments detailed above,
which fact is incorporated in column No.’s 13 & 14 of Nikah
Nama. As far as 1/3rd share in house is concerned, it was not
fixed in Haq Maher, but was decided that plaintiff would live
separately in that 1/3 portion as long as she remained loyal
wife of defendant. So, she stayed in that portion as long as
she remained loyal wife of defendant. Remaining para is

2. Tat para No. 2 of plaint is incorrect. Dower has been duly

paid to the plaintiff.

3. That contents of para No. 3 are self-contradictory and

concocted and hence are not correct. Actual facts are that after
Rukhsati, the defendant was given memorable welcome by
plaintiff and his family members comprising of old ailing
mother and a younger unmarried sister. She was provided all
the facilities by defendant, who tried his level’s best to keep
her happy by all means. As per desire by plaintiff’s parents,
the portion allocated to bride was to be renovated and for that
purpose, dowry articles were not shifted to defendant’s house.

That after a lapse of 4 or 5 months of Rukhsati, it was

conveyed to defendant through plaintiff that this marriage had
been solemnized against the wishes of plaintiff, which fact
further gained strength when the defendant, per chance,
picked up a love letter from her purse, which was addressed
to her by her well-wisher. When this fact was made clear to
plaintiff, she instead of showing repentance, started cursing
defendant by acknowledging the same. Defendant being
gentle, simple and loyal, requested her to forget the past and
let us live harmonious and pious life in future, but to no
effect. As stated above, this marriage being against the wishes
of plaintiff, she tried to commit suicide as a resentment 4 or 5
months later, but due to timely intervention of defendant’s
mother & sister, her life was saved, but this incident was duly
conveyed to plaintiff’s parents and Illaqa Nazim. Thereafter
on 13.3.02 after the death of defendant’s mother, plaintiff on
her own left the defendant’s house in his absence and took
away all the golden ornaments, wedding ring of defendant,
Rs. 10,000/- net cash, saving bonds worth Rs. 20,000/-, Rado
wrist watch, cassette player (National) and her clothes and
other things. Defendant through various Panchayats, tried his
level’s best to rehabilitate her at his own house, but to no
effect, hence a suit for Restitution of Conjugal Rights was
filed by defendant against the plaintiff on 12.4.02, which is
pending disposal. This suit has been filed as a counter blast of
that suit.

4. That para No. 4 is absolutely incorrect and hence is not

admitted. In view of circumstances narrated above in reply of
para No. 3, it is requested that this Hon’ble Court being Qazi
under the Islamic dispensation, has given vast powers to
finalize the matter as deems fit in accordance with law, justice
& equity. Letters addressed to plaintiff by her well wisher
shall be produced in evidence.

5. That para No. 5 is incorrect. Full details of actual facts have

been given above.

6. That para No. 6 is incorrect.

7. That para No. 7 is incorrect.

8. That para No. 8 is legal.

9. That para No. 9 is legal.

Prayer clause is frivolous, baseless, concocted
and false, hence, it is humbly requested that this shit of
the plaintiff may kindly be dismissed with cost.

Humble Defendant,

Dated: ________


Advocate High Court,
123-District Courts,