' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.---Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioner calls in question the validity of impugned order dated 8-10-2010 whereby the learned Judge Family Court decreed the suit of respondent for dissolving the marriage in the following terms:-- "The copy of Nikah Nama has been presented by the plaintiff, according to which the dower amount Rs,36,000 was given to the plaintiff as dower at the time of Nikah. Therefore, the lady is bound to return/restore the said dower received by her at the time of Nikah."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of the learned Judge Family Court in so far as directing the respondent to restore the dower amount of Rs,36,000 is based on surmises and conjectures and violative of Section 10(4) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964. He argues that as per own pleadings of the respondent dower in the shape of gold ornaments was received by her, therefore, under the law she is bound to return the same dower in the same coin or learned Judge Family Court was supposed to fix the amount of dower as per prevalent rate of gold at the time of filing of the suit, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Relies on Shakeel Saood Khan v. Rizwana Khanum and another (PLD 2012 Lahore 43), Aamna Abdullah .v. Judge Family Court, Multan and another (2011 CLC 1839), Mst.
Robina Shamshad v. Muhammad Hafiz and another (2010 CLC 386).
3. Respondent is present in person and submits that due to poverty she cannot afford to engage a counsel and requests that this petition be decided according to law.
4. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record.
5. Copy of Nikahnama is available on the record according to which an amount of Rs,36,000 was fixed as dower and this is duly reflected in column No,13 relating to 'Haq Mahr'. In the latter column No,16 it has been further mentioned that:-- {{URDU TEXT}} Reading of column Nos.13 and 16 together makes it abundantly clear that "Mehr" was fixed in monetary shape of Rs,36,000 and was paid in terms of "gold ornaments" of the same, value. Had the dower been fixed in the form of gold ornaments then it should have been so stated in column No,13 of the Nikahanama which is meant for this purpose. Moreover, there is no mention of the weight/description of gold ornaments in the Nikahnama, in the absence of which no valid order could be passed to the respondent for return of gold ornaments. The impugned order of the learned Judge Family Court is, therefore, strictly in consonance with the provisions of section 10(4) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 and the learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any illegality or irregularity in the same warranting interference by this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction. I have minutely gone through the case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner and am of the firm view that facts and circumstances of all the aforesaid cases are distinguishable and none of the said cases is applicable to the case of the petitioner.
6. Resultantly, this petition being without any substance is dismissed with no order as to costs.