Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
2013 C.L.R. 1606

Mst. Hina Fakhar vs Rana Shahid and two others

Citation2013 C.L.R. 1606
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Writ Petition No. 4523 of 2009
Date2013-07-16
Judge(s)Ali Baqar Najafi
ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J. --- Through this Constitutional petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of order dated 21.4.2009 passed by Judge Family Court/respondent No. 2 and order dated 9.7.2009 passed by Additional District Judge/respondent No. 3.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner filed a consolidated suit for dissolution of marriage and recovery of dowry articles and suit for restitution of conjugal rights was filed by respondent No. 1. On 21.4.2009, the decree of dissolution of marriage was granted while suit for recovery of dowry articles worth Rs. 2,50,000/- was decreed whereas the suit for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed. Consequently, the petitioner preferred an appeal on the ground that the awarded amount was much less than the decretal amount. The said appeal was dismissed on 9.7.2009. Hence, this writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that claim of the petitioner is proved on the basis of evidence (Exh.PA, PB & PC and Mark-A&B; that the respondent has admitted k cross-examination that the articles amounting to C.L.R.

Rs. 4,77,030/- were brought by the petitioner to his house; that the two Courts below have not applied the correct law on the facts and circumstances of this case. Hence, prays for setting aside of the impugned orders.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the available record.

5. The decree of Rs. 2,50,000/- was granted to the petitioner by the Judge Family Court on the basis of cogent reasons. Although documentary evidence regarding the gold ornaments and motorbike was produced, which obviously, could not be read in the absence of its scribe. The wear and tear of usable items during the subsistence of marriage were duly taken into consideration, whereafter reasonable amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was granted, which should not be enhanced. No jurisdictional defect or any glaring illegality has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. In this view of the matter, this petition has no merits and the same is hereby dismissed. .

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch