AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.---Through this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.6.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Liaquatpur, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 15.3.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Liaquatpur and appeal of respondent against the decree for dower was accepted.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner-plaintiff on 22.2.2007 filed a suit for recovery of dower amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- and plot measuring 10 Marla with constructed house or in alternate further Rs. 5,00,000/-. She further claimed her past and future maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per month and also claimed the recovery of Rs. 2,00,000/- in accordance with condition No. 16 of the Nikahnama. In first round of litigation the matter came up before this Court and the matter was remanded back. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 15.3.2010 decreed the suit for recovery of dower amount to the extent of Rs. 4,95,000/- while to the extent of remaining claim the suit was dismissed. The suit of the plaintiff for recovery of maintenance allowance was decreed at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per month for Jidda period and to the extent of Rs. 2,00,000/- suit was dismissed.
3. Both the parties filed the appeals. The learned Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 29.6.2010 modified the by the learned Trial Court and to the extent of Rs. 3000/- for the period of Jidda total amount of Rs. 12000/- was maintained and the decree for dower was modified and only sum of Rs. 5000/- was decreed and to the extent of "other prayers the decree of the learned Trial Court was maintained, hence this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has supported the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. He stated that when the Nikahnama was not denied by the defendant- respondent and its entries were also not challenged by him before any forum, therefore, the defendant cannot defend himself in the suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff. If there was any reservation with the defendant with regard to the entries of the Nikahnama he was bound under the law to challenge the same before the Civil Court in a separate suit and the Civil Court is competent to try such suit. Learned counsel further argued that Nikahnama is a public document in the light of case-law titled Mst. Zubaida Bibi and others V. Mst. Majidan and another (1994 SCMR 1978). Nikahnama being public document, no further evidence is required to prove the same.
Learned counsel further states that the case of the petitioner is further strengthened by the documents produced by the defendant himself as Mark-D because in the record of Union Council the same copy of Nikahnama is available and the opinion of the Secretary Union Council that Parat Nikahnama seems to be doubtful having no value in the eyes of law and the learned first Appellate Court while relying upon this piece of evidence has absolutely wrongly decided the matter in issue which is against the settled principle of law. Learned counsel further relying upon case titled Muhammad Saleem Akhtar v. Judge Family Court and others (2004 YLR 2541) contends that no further evidence is required to prove the Nikahnama and further while replying upon Wail Dad v.
Mst. Tasneem Kausar and another (1999 CLC 163) contends that entries of Nikahnama showing transfer of property in lieu of dower requires no registration. Further relying upon case titled Mumtaz Hussain v. Mst. Zaibun Nisa and another 1999CLC 594), learned counsel states that the statement of the Secretary Union Council is not supported to the contention of the-defendant that it is a forged Nikahnama as Secretary Union Conn ii is not eye-witness of this document. Relying upon Muhammad Aslam v. Mst. Suraya (PLD 2000 Lahore 355) learned counsel states that when the plaintiff has made a statement on oath before the Court, it was the duty of the respondent to rebut the evidence with strong and convincing evidence. It is settled principle of law that documentary evidence has more value against, the oral assertions.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the original Nikahnama has been produced but the certified copy was never came on the file, therefore, it cannot be safely relied upon. Learned counsel has not denied signatures of respondent No. 3 on Nikahnama Ex.P-1 and stated that judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court be maintained and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record with their able assistance.
7. The petitioner has based his claim on Nikahnama Ex.P-1. Admittedly, respondent No. 3 has not denied the Nikahnama and he has also not challenged its entries before the Civil Court. When the signatures of this document are not denied by respondent No. 3, therefore, without challenging these entries before the Civil Court, the respondent-defendant is bound under the law to admit these entries as correct and he cannot build his claim against the entries through his oral evidence, when presumption of correctness is attached with this document and the respondent has not challenged the entries of this document before the Civil Court, therefore, by the learned Trial Court is absolutely in accordance with few and the learned first Appellate Court has wrongly set-aside the same. Nikahnama Mark-D which has been produced by the Secretary Union Council has also matched with Ex.P-1 and it confirms the authenticity of Nikahnama Ex.P-1. Therefore, on the basis of case-law relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it can be safely held that the judgment of the first Appellate Court is against the law and he wrongly set aside the findings of the learned Trial Court.
8. So far as decree for maintenance allowance is concerned, when it is proved that defendant- respondent has not paid dower, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to live separately from the defendant-respondent, consequently, she becomes entitled to recover maintenance from him.
' In the light of what has been discussed above, this writ petition is allowed. Resultant, the judgment and by the learned Trial Court is declared to have been passed in accordance with law and that of the learned first Appellate Court is declared against the settled principle of law.