IBAD-UR-REHMAN LODHI, J.---The marriage between the petitioner and respondent No,1 was solemnized against a consideration of dower in shape of gold ornaments weighing 20- tolas and in the relevant columns of Nikahnama the nature of dower was mentioned as "{{URDU TEXT}} (fie "
(deferred).
2. It was not a peaceful and happy matrimonial life of the spouses and respondent wife had to take resort of filing a suit inter alia for recovery of the dower. The learned Judge Family Court, Toba Tek Singh on 2-11-2011 proceeded to dismiss the same. The portion of the suit for maintenance was earlier withdrawn by the plaintiff on 3-11-2010. The suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the writ petitioner was decreed through the same judgment.
3. In appeal, findings of the court below with regard to the dower amount was reversed and suit was decreed to the tune of gold ornaments weighing 20-tolas or market value thereof vide judgment and decree dated 8-2-2012.
4. The findings so arrived at by the learned, appellate court are subject matter of the present writ petition, mainly on the ground that the deferred dower would be payable in eventuality of dissolution of marriage either by death or divorce.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No,1 has placed before the Court a certified copy of Nikahnama, showing that the petitioner Muhammad Shabbir entered into marriage with one Parveen Akhtar on 4-9-2011. The fact of entering into second marriage by petitioner Muhammad Shabbir is not denied by the learned counsel for petitioner. It is the claim of learned counsel for respondent No,1 that for such second marriage, permission of the first existing wife i.e, respondent No,1 has not been obtained. Even column No,21 of Nikahnama of said second marriage meant for entries as to the presence of any existing wife with the bridegroom have not been filled in and it is not mentioned as to whether there is any existing wife in the wedlock of said Muhammad Shabbir.
6. The main thrust of learned counsel for the petitioner is based on the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Saadia Usman and another v. Muhammad Usman Iqbal Jadoon and another" (2009 SCMR 1458) with the contention that if no time was fixed for payment of the deferred dower, it would be payable in eventuality of dissolution of marriage either by death or divorce.
' In the reported matter, the male contestant of the litigation never entered into the second marriage and thus the principle laid down in the said judgment is distinguishable keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the present case.
' Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on Head Note 290 of Mohammadan Law by D.F. Mulla to contend that the amount of dower is usually split into two parts, one called "prompt" which is payable on demand, and the other called "deferred", which is payable on dissolution of marriage by death or divorce.
' But the learned counsel after referring head note 290 has not proceeded further and ignored the provisions of Head Note 336(2) of Mohammedan Law which reads that if the marriage was consummated, the wife is entitled to immediate payment of whole unpaid dower, both prompt or deferred.
7. The command of Almighty Allah as ordained in Holy Qur'an in Verse "24" of "Surah-e-Nisa" is to the following effect:-- "And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as duty"
Thus on such unconditional command one can easily say that according to Quranic injunctions, there is no split in the dower whether deferred or prompt.
8. This point has been considered in detail in some of the judgments by our Superior Courts. In the case reported as "Dr: Anees Ahmad v. Mst. Uzma" (PLD 1998 Lahore 52), it was held that payment of dower, was obligatory on husband which is the entitlement of the wife I as consideration of marriage.
' In the case of "Dr. Sabira Sultana v. Maqsood Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi and 2 others" (2000 CLC 1384), this Court is of the view that:- "There being no classification of the dower as prompt and deferred in the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah, the deferment of the payment of dower for an indefinite period with the consent of the wife is not prohibited, but if a wife makes demand of its payment, the husband being under an obligation to make payment of the same, cannot further defer it on any excuse. The provisions of section 6(5) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 being not in conflict with Islam, it is mandatory for a husband to pay entire amount of dower, whether prompt or deferred, in case of entering into contract of second marriage in presence of first wife without her permission."
' In the case of "Muhammad Azam v. Additional District Judge and others" (2006 YLR 33), this Court is of the view that the dower whether prompt or deferred is an inalienable right of a wife and after consummation of marriage same would become vested right of a wife at any time.
' This Court in the case of "Munazza Noor and 2 others v. Additional District Judge and others"
(2009 CLC 374) while dealing with the provisions of section 6(5) of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 has held that husband on contracting the second marriage without permission of the first wife or the Arbitration Council, becomes liable to pay to the first wife entire dower amount either prompt or deterred. Same was the view of Karachi High Court in the case of "Mst. Shaheen Begum v. Zakaullah Khan Ghouri and others" (2009 MLD 1124).
10. Section 6(5) of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 would be relevant piece of legislation for the present purposes:- "(5) Any man who contracts another marriage without the permission of Arbitration Council shall:
(a) Pay immediately the entire amount of dower, whether prompt or deferred, due to the existing wife or wives, which amount if not so paid shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue"
11. As discussed above, it is now abundantly clear that the amount .Of dower fixed at the time of marriage in between the parties to the present litigation was 20 tolas gold ornaments or value thereof and the same has not yet been paid as according to the petitioner, the stage of its payment has not yet come. But he is mistaken. At least by entering into the second marriage without getting prior permission either of the existing wife viz respondent No,1 herein or the Arbitration Council, the dower even if it is termed as deferred has forthwith become payable by the petitioner to the respondent and thus this petition is dismissed. Decree passed by the first appellate court is maintained by reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Judge Family Court on 2-11-2011. The dower i.e, 20-tolas of gold ornaments or value thereof according to today's market value be paid to the respondent wife within a period of one month from the passing of this judgment, otherwise it will be open to the Executing Court to proceed against the petitioner/judgment-debtor for its recovery under the Land Revenue Act as arrears of land revenue.