ASAD MUNIR, J.--- The petitioner's marriage with respondent No,1 was contracted through Nikahnama dated 18-12-2008 the entry at Serial No, 13 whereof mentioned the haqmehr as Rs,5000/- while at its Serial No,15 it is stated that the said haqmehr was paid at the time of nikah.
The marriage was short-lived because of the irreconcilable differences between the spouses with the result that on 8-3-2009 respondent No,1 left the house of the petitioner and on 27-6-2009 she filed a suit for dissolution of her marriage on the grounds of cruelty as well as khula. In his written statement, the petitioner, inter alia, asserted that the respondent No,1 was not entitled to the dissolution of her marriage till she 'returned the gold ornaments weighing 13 tolas mentioned at Serial No, 16 of the Nikahnama to have been given to her by the petitioner at the time of marriage.
Vide judgment/decree dated 17-6-2010, the suit was decreed by the learned Judge Family Court on A the basis of khula subject to return of Rs,5000/- and gold ornaments, weighing 13 tolas. In appeal, filed by respondent No,1, the learned District Judge, Gujrat, vide judgment and decree date 18-9-2010, has modified the Judge Family Court's judgment and decree to the extent that the gold ornaments, weighing 13 tolas, are not liable to be returned for being bridal gifts on the ground that in view of the proviso to section 10(4) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, nothing except haqmehr is liable to be returned upon dissolution of a marriage on the ground of khula.
2. The learned District Judge's judgment and decree has been challenged on the ground that no appeal was competent under section 14 of the Act. It is further submitted that the decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of 'khula' can be passed only on the condition of restoration of dower and other benefits received by the wife. It is further submitted that gold ornaments, being mentioned at Serial No,16 of the nikahnama, were also liable to be returned for being part of the dower. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has referred to Mst. Shaista v. Sheikh Liaquat Ali Sathi and 2 others (PLD 2006 Lahore 158) and Samia Akbar v. Muhammad Zubair PLD 1990 Lah.
71.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that under section 10(4) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, where a marriage is dissolved only haqmehr is restored and such haqmehr does not include other benefits received by the wife which must be treated as bridal gifts. Reference has been made to Shahbaz Begum v. Muhammad Sharif and others (PLD 2004 Lahore 290) wherein it has been held that any bridal gift given by the husband is the absolute property of the wife.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the case-law submitted by the parties.
5. The first submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that no appeal against the dissolution of marriage, ordered under section 10(4) is the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, is competent in view of the bar contained in section 14(2)(a) of the Act. The argument of the learned counsel appears to be mis-conceived as in the instant case the appeal was not filed against the dissolution of marriage but was directed against the amount of consideration determined as dower and payable to the husband on the ground of Khula. In support, reference may be made to Muhammad Shaban v. Judge Family Court and others (2003 YLR 2708), Muhammad Samiullah v. Muhammad Ilyas and others (PLD 1987 Lah. 420) and Naila Azmat v.
Judge Family Court and others (1999 MLD 3090).
6. The main issue that needs to be resolved is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the return of gold ornaments, weighing 13 tolas, in lieu of khula granted by the learned Judge Family Court. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has firstly argued that the said gold ornaments, being mentioned at Serial No,16 of the nikahnama, are liable to be returned as they must regarded as forming part of the dower. This calls for a perusal of entries made at Serial Nos.13, 14, 15 and 16 of the nikahnama dated 18-12-2008. Haqmahr of Rs,5000/- is fixed in the entry against serial No,13 and is described as prompt at serial No,14 while serial No,15 shows that it has been paid at the time of marriage. The entry of gold ornaments, weighing 13 tolas, having been given to the bride is shown at serial No, 16 of the nikahnama. Although it is written in answer to the question if in lieu of dower any property has been given yet the mention of Rs,5,000/- as dower in Columns Nos.13, 14 and 15 leaves no doubt that the gold ornaments are in addition to the haqmahr and not in lieu thereof and do not form part of the dower. Obviously, gold ornaments, weighing 13 tolas, have much greater value than Rs,5000/- and could not be treated as part of haqmahr of Rs,5,000/- only.
Entries against serial Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 16 cannot be construed in such a manner so as to conclude that the haqmahr consisted of Rs,5,000/- and gold ornaments mentioned in column No,
16. The position would have been otherwise if the gold ornaments had also been mentioned at serial Nos.13, 14 and 15 of the nikahnama which is not the case here. It follows that such gold ornaments are not part and parcel of dower but have to be regarded as bridal gifts in contradistinction to dower.
7. Relying on Mst. Shaista v. Sheikh Liaquat Ali Sathi and two others (supra) and Samia Akbar v.
Muhammad Zubair (supra), it has also been argued that the gold ornaments are liable to be returned as in the case of khula, apart from dower, a wife is bound to restore all benefits she has received from the husband. However, the precedent, Mst. Shaista versus Sheikh Liaquat Ali Sathi and 2 others, is distinguishable as it did not involve the question of gold ornaments being given as gift but related to the return of gold ornaments mentioned at serial Nos.13 and 14 of the nikahnama as dower. The other case, Samia Akbar v. Muhammad Zubair PLD 1990 Lah. 71 is also not relevant as it was decided in 1990 and does not involve the interpretation of the proviso to section 10(4) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, which was introduced in the year 2002. It seems that Najeeb Ullah v. Mst. Makhdoom Akhtar (supra) and Mst. Shahnaz Begum v. Muhammad Shafi and others (supra) are relevant as it was held therein that any bridal gift given by the husband is the absolute property of the wife which she is entitled to recover. The word "dower" employed in section 10(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1964, has to be given its ordinary and plain meaning and cannot be stretched to include bridal gifts or benefits other than dower received by the wife. There is no reason to treat dower and bridal gifts or benefits other than dower as synonymous. Giving an enlarged meaning to dower so as to include the bridal gifts and benefits other than dower can open floodgates with the result a wife seeking khula would be exposed to insurmountable liabilities as would certainly dissuade here from seeking khula.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion, I see no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned District Judge, who was right in reaching the conclusion that the gold ornaments, mentioned at serial No,16 of the Nikahnama dated 18-12-2008, are bridal gifts which cannot be confused with dower and are, therefore, not liable to be returned to the petitioner on the ground of khula. Resultantly, I see no merit in this writ petition which is dismissed with no order as to costs.