' MEHBOOB ALI KHAN, J.---Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din, the petitioner herein, calls in question in this Constitutional petition lodged under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 validity of the judgment and decree passed by Family Court, Haripur on the payment of dower in the sum of Rs,5,000 to his wife Mst. Firdous Jan which has been later on affirmed in appeal before the District Judge and asks that the impugned judgments and decrees of both the Courts being against law and facts of the case be declared as without lawful authority and of no legal 'effect.
2. Mst. Firdaus Jan was married to Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din petitioner in the year, 1982 in lieu of dower consideration at Rs,5,000. On account of strained relations which had developed between the spouses after the marriage, Mst. Firdaus Jan was obliged to live separately from her husband and file a suit in the year, 1991 before the Family Court at Haripur asking for the recovery of dower money in the sum of Rs,5,000 and certain amount of maintenance from the husband. Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din resisted the suit but did not succeed and the learned Judge, Family Court after writing evidence in the case on both sides was pleased to record a decree in favour of the lady wife on 5-4-1994 which has been later on affirmed in appeal before the District Judge with certain modifications relating to the payment of maintenance allowance to the lady-wife.
3. We have heard the learned counsel in motion. His contention has been that consideration of dower amount fixed at the time of marriage between the spouses being "deferred" one {{URDU TEXT}}, it could only be claimed on the dissolution of marriage by death or divorce. The learned counsel in support thereof made us read column No, 15 of. The "Nikahnama" which of course shows that the dower fixed was "deferred" {{URDU TEXT}} (_). However, there is no dispute relating to the amount of dower. But the matter does not end here. When we perused written statement of the petitioner-husband filed before the Family Court it clearly indicated that the petitioner had already paid dower amount in the sum of Rs,5,000 to his wife. Not only this Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din in his statement made before the Judge Family Court on 11-11-1993 reiterated on that position and again in unequivocal terms stated in Court that a sum of Rs,5,000 was fixed as dower of the lady-wife at the time of marriage which he had paid.
4. A marriage according to Muslim law is civil contract and dower or "Mahr" is a sum of money or other property which the wife would be entitled to receive from the husband in consideration of marriage. It is either prompt or deferred or part of it prompt and part deferred. The prompt dower is payable on demand while the deferred is payable on the dissolution of marriage by death or divorce. In this case admittedly the dower amount fixed in the sum of Rs,5,000 at the time of marriage was deferred {{URDU TEXT}} as column No, 15 of the Nikahnama', dated 6-9-1992 states.
But the petitioner husband in his own written statement when filed before the Family Court did not choose by himself to go into this controversy and stated on the contrary that he had made payment of dower money in the sum of Rs,5,000 to his wife even before the institution of her suit for recovery thereof and afterwards during proceedings of the case before the Court again reiterated over this position. There is also no mention of this fact either in the written statement or in the Court-statement of the petitioner that dower was deferred and payable on the dissolution of marriage by death or divorce.
5. In this background of the stand taken by Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din before the Family Court in the said suit of his wife it cannot be now agitated that dower was deferred and could only be paid on the dissolution of marriage by death or divorce. Moreso, the parties could with mutual consent after the marriage vary terms relating to the mode of payment of dower at any time and the position taken by the petitioner husband before the Family Court would suffice to say that deferred-dower was later on changed into prompt-one which according to the husband's own plea had been paid by him to the lady-wife. The learned Judge was, therefore, within his jurisdiction to look into the matter and decide the factum of payment or non-payment of dower to the lady-respondent in the background of pleadings filed in the case before it and evidence led in support thereof.
6. In this view of the matter which we take, we do not find any substance in this writ petition and dismiss it in limine.