' MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.---Instant constitutional petition assailed the judgment/decree dated 3-3-2006, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Shakargarh, District Narowal, to be declared illegal void and of no legal consequence, whereby appeal filed by respondent No,2 was partly accepted and judgment/decree passed by the learned Judge Family Court, was set aside to the extent of dower amount.
2. Succinctly, relevant facts are that petitioner was married with respondent No,2 on 13-12-2002, according to Muslim rites through a registered Nikah Nama. This marriage gave birth to a female child namely Mst. Fatima Bibi but relations between the spouses did not remain cordial and ultimately resulted in separation. Petitioner filed a consolidated suit, for recovery of dower amount of Rs,1,50,000 dowry articles or value thereof of Rs,2,13,774 and for maintenance allowance of the minor petitioner had pleaded in the plaint that her parents gifted her dowry articles of the value of above mentioned rupees, at the time of marriage which was lying with respondent No,2 and she was not permitted to remove those, when she was forced to desert house of respondent No,2, ignoring that she was pregnant at that time. She further pleaded that her husband has divorced but earlier to effectiveness of "Talaq", compromise was effected where under dower amount was re-fixed as. Rs,1, 50, 000 through a "Yadasht" dated 8-5-2004. She further pleaded that she was entitled to maintenance alloWance of Rs,6,000 for her "Iddat" period besides maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs,1,000 per month for her minor daughter.
3. Respondent No,2 being defendant in the suit contested the same by filing his written statement, refuting the averments in the plaint. Controversial pleadings of the parties necessitated framing of issues and recording of evidence. The learned Judge Family. Court, seized of the matter, after doing the needful, decreed the suit of the petitioner and answered all the Issues Nos.1 to 3 in her favour, vide judgment/decree-dated 20-10-.2005.
4. Respondent No,2 was not satisfied with the decision of the trial Court and he consequently filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, where he succeeded as his appeal was partly accepted on 3-3-2006 and findings of the trial Court on Issue No,1 were reversed with the result that the petitioner's suit relating to dower amount of Rs,1,50,000 was dismissed whereas decree in her suit relating to dowry articles and maintenance allowance was upheld. Petitioner, thereafter, filed instant constitutional petition with the relief noted above. Respondent No,2 in response to notice deliberately avoided service of notice issued by the office of this Court, consequently his service was affected through citation in the daily newspaper i.e, "Nawa-e-Waqt"
(Urdu), Lahore dated 5-7-2006 requiring him to appear on 30-10-2006 but he opted to remain absent and was consequently proceeded against ex parte.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the record, appended herewith. Appeal of respondent No,2 was mainly accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, doubting execution of (Exh.P.2) whereby dower amount of Rs,1,50,000 was fixed. The, appellate Court after appraising the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and _2 concluded that respondent No,2 did not voluntarily agree to fix the dower amount as petitioner did not produce one of the marginal witnesses of the document (Exh.P.2). It was also remarked that stamp paper for inscribing (Exh.P.2) was purchased by brother of the petitioner as per statement of P.W.1 but it did not bear his signatures. It was also observed that purpose of purchase of the stamp paper was not mentioned on its back. According to the Court of appeal the stamp paper was purchased in favour of Muhammad Latif whose signatures were scored off. Scan of impugned appellate judgment revealed that none of the reasons assigned to negate the document (Exh.P.2) was lawful because Muhammad Latif in whose favour stamp paper was purchased, was father of the petitioner and it was nobody's case that the stamp paper in question were not purchased by respondent No,2.
Execution of such documents would not lost efficacy of those, merely because those were not entered in the register of the scribe or purchase of stamp paper was doubtful. Reference in this behalf can be made to the judgments in the cases of Sana Ullah Khan v. Feroze Din 1994 M LD 618 and Sana Ullah Khan v. Feroze Din 1994 M LD 618. Petitioner had asserted in paragraph No,3 of her plaint that earlier to the effectiveness of divorce elders of the family brought about a compromise between the spouses whereunder dower amount was enhanced to Rs,1,50,000 through agreement ,dated 8-5-2004. Respondent No,2 while replying this paragraph in written statement, evasively answered the paragraph No,3 of the plaint, without denying the execution of agreement dated 8- 5-2004. Besides it, respondent No,2 while appearing as (D.W.1) though denied his signatures on (Exh.P.2) but he admitted his signatures on (Exh.P.3 and Exh.P.4) which are a letter and divorce deed, respectively. Comparison of signatures of respondent No,2 on these documents left no room to return a finding that (Exh.P.2) was not signed by him. Tenor, style and flow of signatures of respondent No,2 on all these 3 documents did not only resemble to each other but also tally with one another. The learned Judge Family Court, had undertaken exercise of comparison of these signatures and he correctly concluded that (Exh.P.2) was signed by respondent No,2 but the learned Additional District Judge, while reversing findings on Issue No,1 did not attend to this aspect of the case, which negatively reflects on the Impugned judgment.
6. Since provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 were not applicable to the proceedings before the learned Judge Family Court, thus it could hardly be said that on account of non- production of one of the marginal witnesses, Exh.P.2 remained unproved. It goes without remarking that respondent No,2 while signing the agreement dated 8-5-2004, inscribed his name; the number of his National Identity Card and his present address with his own handwriting which was enough proof of the fact that (Exh.P.2) was voluntarily executed by him. Above all, respondent No,2 in Para.3 of his written statement by saying that he had pronounced final divorce on 23-8-2004 admitted by implication her asserted compromise. Law regarding enhancement of dower amount is firmly settled by this time to the effect that the same can be done at any stage of the continuance of married life and it, could even be done orally whereas it was done in the case in hand through written agreement duly proved by the P.Ws. Scan of record and the impugned order revealed that Court of appeal fell in error in disbelieving the Exh.P.2 and erroneously non-suited the petitioner by reversing the findings of the learned Judge Family Court, on Issue No,l.
7. For the reasons noted above, judgment/decree dated 3-3-2006 passed by the learned.
Additional District Judge, Shakargarh being opposed to evidence on the file and the law applicable deserved to be declared illegal and of no legal consequence, and instant petition is bound to succeed and is accordingly accepted. Writ as prayed, is issued with no order as to costs.