1

IN THE COURT OF MUHAMMAD ASIF RANA

ADDL: DISTRICT JUDGE JALALPUR PIRWALA.

1- Shaheen Bibi & 02 others vs Khalid Hussain

Family Appeal NO.21/F of 2017

Date of Institution 12-10-2017/30-10-2018
Date of Decision 21.10.2019

2- Khalid Hussain vs Shaheen Bibi

Family Appeal NO.24/F of 2018

Date of Institution 10-11-2018/27-02-2019
Date of Decision 21.10.2019

CONSOLIDATED JUDGMENT:
21.10.2019

As both these appeals are against the same

judgment and decree dated 29-09-2018, so, both are

discussed and are disposed of through single judgment.

Note: For convenience Mst. Shaheen Bibi & 02 others

are called appellants while Khalid Hussain is called

respondent.

2 Necessary background of these appeals are that

the appellants Shaheen Bibi alongwith two minors filed a

suit for recovery of maintenance allowance titled: “Shaheen

Bibi etc vs Khalid Hussain” on 12.10.2017. In the said suit

they claimed Rs.5000/- per month per head with an increase

of 10% per annum.

3 The respondent filed the contesting written statement

on 27-01-2018.

4 In the first suit for maintenance allowance

following issues were framed on 09-02-2018:

 2

ISSUES:

1- Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover

maintenance allowance from the defendant, if so, at

what rate and from what period? OPP

2- Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file

this suit? OPD

3- Relief:

5 Later on, the appellant also filed a separate suit

for recovery of dowry articles amounting to Rs.5,50,000/- on

17-03-2018 titled “Shaheen Bibi etc vs Khalid Hussain”

6 The respondent filed contesting written

statement on 22-05-2018.

7 Both the suits were consolidated on 28-05-2018

in the following term:

CONSOLIDATED ISSUES:

1- Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the

maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.5000/- per

head per month from the defendant? OPP

2- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover dowry

articles worth Rs.500,000/- from the defendant? OPP

3- Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable?

OPD

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

this suit? OPD

5- Relief:
 3

8 Learned trial Court after recording evidence of

the parties and hearing the parties decided both the suits in

the following terms:

“the suit of the plaintiffs for maintenance

allowance is decreed and they are held

entitled for maintenance allowance

Rs.2000/- per month per plaintiffs No.2

and 3 each from the date of institution of

the suit till their legal entitlement with

15% annual increase while Rs.3000/- per

month is fixed for plaintiff No.1 from the

date of institution of the suit till her legal

entitlement subject to perform her

matrimonial obligations in the house of

the defendant. Suit of plaintiff for recovery

of dowry articles is decreed to the extent of

Rs.1,50,000/-.”

9 Feeling aggrieved the appellants filed the instant

appeal only to the extent of maintenance allowance.

10 On the other hand, the respondent Khalid

Hussain (the appellant of the other appeal) filed the instant

appeal only to the extent of recovery of dowry articles.

11 Jam Elahi Bakhsh Sajjad advocate learned

counsel for the appellants argued on behalf of the

appellants.
 4

12 Jam Abdul Majeed advocate learned counsel for

the respondent argued on behalf of the respondent.

13 Arguments heard. Record perused.

14 Before going to dispose the appeals I give the gist

of the evidence produced by both the parties.

The appellant herself appeared as P.W-1 and in

documentary evidence she produced attested copy Nikah

Nama of the respondent with Samreen Mai as Ex. P2,

attested copy of Jamabandi as Ex. P3 and list of dowry

articles as Mark-A.

15 On the other hand, respondent appeared himself

as D.W- 1. He did not produce any documentary evidence.

16 First of all I shall discuss the issue of

maintenance allowance.

17 The appellant appeared herself as P.W- 1. She

submitted her examination in chief in the shape of Ex.P-1.

Ex. P1 is silent about the financial status of the respondent .

The plaint of the appellant is also silent in this regard. She

simply claims Rs.5000/- per month per head.

However, in cross examination she replied that the

respondent is owner of much lands in Mauza Bait Kaitch

and she can produce the proof of his ownership. In support

of her version she produced copy of Register Record of Rights

for the year 2008-09 as Ex. P3. As per Ex. P3 the respondent

is owner of only 01 Kanal-07 Marla & 212 Feet. It shows that

 5

the respondent is not a man of means. The appellant NO.1

has failed to prove any other source of the respondent.

18 On the other hand, it is the contention of the

respondent that he is a poor person and is a labourer.

19 As the relationship between the parties is

admitted, so, learned trial Court has rightly affixed the

maintenance allowance of the minors (appellants NO.2 & 3)

as Rs.2000/- per month per head since the institution of the

suit till their entitlement with 15% annual increase.

20 So far as the appellant NO.1 is concerned; she

has not mentioned her claim of maintenance allowance

clearly in her examination in chief.

However, in cross examination she replied that she is

ready to rehabilitate with the respondent if he divorces his

second wife otherwise she will not reside with the respondent

at any cost. She replied that she has received her Haq Mehr.

It means the Haq Mehr is already paid and the appellant

NO.1 has been residing separately with her own free will.

As the marriage tie is still intact, so, learned trial

Court has rightly observed that the appellant NO.1 is

entitled to the maintenance allowance at the rate of

Rs.3000/- per month subject to performance of her

matrimonial obligations in the house of the respondent.

21 Now I shall discuss the issue of recovery of

dowry articles.
 6

22 In Para NO.1 of the suit, the appellant herself

stated that her parents gave her dowry articles

approximately of Rs.5,50,000/-. It shows that appellant

herself is not certain about the exact amount of dowry

articles.

She appeared herself as P.W- 1 and submitted her

examination in chief in the shape of Ex. P1. In Ex. P1 she

only deposed that her dowry articles amounting to

Rs.5,50,000/- are in possession of the respondent. She has

also not named any dowry articles in her examination in

chief. In cross examination she replied that her brother got

recorded the details of dowry articles to her counsel. She

replied that she did not thumb mark the list of dowry

articles; she further replied that she does not know whether

her father or any other person affixed the thumb impression

on the list of dowry articles. She next replied that her father

may know about the receipt of the dowry articles..

In this way the appellant could not prove the dowry

articles as per list Mark-A.

23 On the other hand, the respondent appeared

himself as D.W-1 who (in examination in chief) admitted the

fact that a few articles were given to the appellant at the time

of marriage i.e some clothes, box, a cot, a bed sheet.

In cross examination he replied that the appellant has

taken away her dowry articles except a box which is lying in

his house. The respondent could not prove that the

 7

appellant has taken away her dowry articles rather it is

admitted by the respondent that some dowry articles were

given to the appellant at the time of her marriage.

It is general tradition in our society that mothers start

to collect the dowry articles from the day first when a

daughter is born.

In the attending circumstances, learned trial Court

has rightly observed that the appellant is entitled to the

decree of dowry articles to the extent of Rs.150,000/-.

In the light of all discussed above, both the appeals are

hereby dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. Record of learned trial

court be sent back whereas that of this court be consigned to

the record room after its due completion.

Announced:
21-10-2019 Muhammad Asif Rana
Addl: District Judge,
Jalalpur Pirwala.

Certified that this consolidated judgment

consists of 07 pages the same has been dictated, read,

corrected & signed by me.

Announced:
21-10-2019 Muhammad Asif Rana
Addl: District Judge,
Jalalpur Pirwala.
 8

21.10.2019
Present:- Learned counsel for the appellants, Jam Elahi
Bakhsh Sajjad advocate.
Learned counsel for the respondent Jam Abdul
Majeed advocate

Vide my separate detailed consolidated

judgment of even date in English language, instant appeal is

hereby dismissed. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.

Record of learned trial court be sent back whereas that of

this court be consigned to the record room after its due

completion.

Announced.
21.10.2019 Muhammad Asif Rana,
Addl. District Judge,
Jalalpur Pirwala.
 9

21.10.2019
Present:- Learned counsel for the appellant Jam Abdul
Majeed, advocate.
Learned counsel for the respondent Jam Elahi
Bakhsh Sajjad advocate

Vide my separate detailed consolidated judgment

of even date in English language, in the connected appeal

titled: “SHAHEEN BIBI ETC VS KHALID HUSSAIN” instant

appeal is hereby dismissed. Decree sheet be drawn

accordingly. Record of learned trial court be sent back

whereas that of this court be consigned to the record room

after its due completion.

Announced.
21.10.2019 Muhammad Asif Rana,
Addl. District Judge,
Jalalpur Pirwala.