Receipts are not required to be filed and shopkeepers are not required to be witnesses for dowry articles

Receipts are not required to be filed and shopkeepers are not required to be witnesses for dowry articles

Section 5 of family court act 1964

Suit for recovery of maintenance dowry articles gold ornaments dower and money – dowry articles proof of—production of receipts regarding dowry articles – requirement – trial court decreed the suit  – both parties filed appeal and appellate court dismissing appeal filed by defendant, decreed suit filed by plaintiff as prayed for .. contentions raised by defendant were that no documentary proof had been produced regarding preparations of dowry articles and gold ornaments – validity—defendant had failed to fulfill the marital obligations – plaintiff was not responsible for her desertion— appellant court had rightly held that plaintiff was entitled to dower gold ornaments and cash amount as prayed for— after snatching dowry articles bridal gifts gold ornaments from plaintiff, defendant had not provided any maintenance to her—defendant during cross examination had failed to discard claim made by plaintiff and throughout her statement remained unrebutted of defendant that plaintiff had not proved dowry articles by producing their receipts was not tenable as neither villagers would ask for receipts of wedding shopping nor would shopkeeper stand as witnesses for their customer—appellant court had rightly passed impugned judgment and decree after proper appreciation of evidence which could not be interfered with by High court in exercised of constitutional jurisdiction. Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances..

2016 YLR Note 43

Receipts of the Dower Articles

Receipts of the Dower Articles

Suit for the Recovery of dowry articles- proof in form of list dowry articles bearing signatures of husband side- scope- not possible for a wife to produce such kind of documentary evidence.

Court observe that in our society it is not possible for any bride/wife to keep the record of purchase receipts prepare the list of dowry articles, and obtain signature from bridegroom / husband side. In judge observation mothers start collecting purchase and preserving of articles for her daughter when she starts growing. It is also a tradition that in laws of any bride/wife are extended esteem respect and it is considered an insult to prepare the dowry list for the purpose of obtaining signature form them. I am also forfeited with the ration and wisdom of the court of apex provided though cases Muhammad Habib versus Mst. Safia reported as 2008 SCMR 1584 and Mirza Arshad Baig versus Additional District Judge reported as 2005 SCMR 1740  (Reference 2013 CLC 1789 Sindh) 

Recovery of Gold Ornaments or its value

Recovery of Gold Ornaments or its value

Section 5 of the west Pakistan family courts act (XXXV of 1964)—gold ornaments  – market value – compensating wife/decree holder with market value of gold instead of gold ornaments – scope – wife filed suit for recovery of dowry articles against her husband and the list of dowry articles included 17 tolas of gold – suit prayed for either recovery of 17 tolas of gold or its value which was stated to e Rs. 380,000/=  — trial court granted decree only for recovery of dowry articles but not its market value therefore wife was held entitled to recovery of 17 tolas and in case he was not in a position to provide the same the wife could be appropriately and fully compensated in terms of money only if she was paid an amount that would enable her to purchase the same from the open market – unlike other property moveable or immoveable determination of market value of gold did not pose any difficulty as the sasem was fixed by gold market on daily basis and was readily exchangeable for case – wife was entitled to recovery of 17 toals gold ornaments or in the alternative its current market value – appeal was allowed accordingly

2013 SCMR 1049

List of Dowry Articles

Qanoon-e-Shahadat section 17

suit for the recovery of dowry articles- non production of receipts for dowry article – effect – provision of the qanun-e-shahadat 1984 were not applicable in the proceedings before family court act 1964 – intent of the legislature was clearly to simplify the proceddure and the law makers were aware of the fact that in cases relating to dower the lists were seldom prepared and receipts were very rarely kept intact as everyone made arrangements for marriage of one's daughter with the hope and prayer that she would lead a happily married life.

2013 CLC 698 Lahore

Recovery of Dowry Articles

Recovery of dowry Articles

Section 17,  Dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Act 1976

Section 2(b) 10, Dowry and Bridal Gift (Restriction) Rule 1976

Suit for Recovery of dowry articles- list of dowry articles produced in evidence by both parties in support of their respective claim – decree passed by  Family Court on basis of such list produced by husband upheld by Appellant Court. Wife plea that rule of thumb would apply to proceedings before Family court and not provisions of Qanoon-e-Shahadat 1984 or its principles, thus receipts in respect of purchase of dowry articles produced by her were liable to be relied upon by courts below –

Validity – wife in her statement had admitted that such list was not prepared at time of her nikah, while her father had deposed otherwise – rule of thumb would not be solve a party from establishing his/her claim – party denying liability, on basis of such rule, could not be burdened to shoulder claim of opposite party without its proof- Dowry list produced by wife was not prepared in shape of Form D-1 as prescribed in Rule 4(1) of Dowry and Bridal Gift (Restriction ) Rules 1976, therefore same was not to be considered in support of her claim – receipts in respect of purchase of household articles on basis of rule of thumb would not quality and met essential requirement of proof of purchase of said articles by parents of wife and its giving to her before or after marriage – High Court dismissed constitutional Petition in circumstances

PLD 2013 Islamabad 11 

(Mst. Mirrat Manzoor Bajwa versus Additional District Judge Islamabad)