' MRS. KHALIDA RACHID, J.---Mst. Farhad/petitioner was married to Khalil Ahmad/respondent. The marriage was solemnized on 20-12-1991 in lieu of dower as per Nikahnama. After three months the marriage went rocky and finally on 29-6-1993 the petitioner was turned out of the house in her advanced pregnancy after giving her harsh beating. She was made to leave in her clothes she was wearing, while other belongings and jewellery/ornaments were kept by the husband in his own possession. She lived with her parents and gave birth to a girl baby after a major surgery. After a year of separation, the petitioner/wife filed a suit for maintenance allowance, dower etc. In the Court of Family Judge. The learned trial Court after scanning the evidence recorded on the issues framed, decreed the suit for recovery of Rs,2,00,000 in cash, gold ornaments weighing 15 Tolas, a constricted house on 10 Marlas land and maintenance allowance at the rate of .Rs,2,000 per month from the date of institution and onwards, whereas the claim of Rs,80,000 regarding dowery and the confinement expenses borne on the birth of child were refused with the direction to seek remedy from the Civil Court. The learned Appellate Court in appeal dismissed the claim of 10 Marlas house and gold ornaments weighing 15 Tolas being part of the dower and beyond the jurisdiction of Judge Family Court.
2. The findings of the Appellate Court are not based on sound appreciation of facts. The claim of the petitioners qua the house constructed on 10 Marlas land and ornaments of 15 Tolas are mentioned in the dower deed/Kabin Nama. It has been specifically declared at Serial Nos.14 and 17 of Niakhnama that 15 Tolas gold ornaments and a house to be constructed on 10 Marlas of land to be given in dower. The petitioner has admittedly received the gold ornaments at the time of marriage. The stance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the gold ornaments given at the time of Nikah were snatched and kept into the possession of respondent/husband, therefore, same has become a part of dowery, that after the amendment in the Family Court Act, 1964 by virtue of Ordinance I of 1997, falls within the competence of the Family Court and, therefore, the Appellate Court had illegally refused it. The contention of the learned counsel is devoid of force. The dowery are those articles which are always given to the wife by her parents at the time of 'Rukhsati', whereas the dower is a right of wife which is always paid or to be paid in lieu of marriage by the husband. Dower once paid the liability of dower is satisfied. Taking away of the dower after the marriage may be considered a loan/credit the return of which could only be sought through civil suit. As for the house of 10 Marlas the same has been given to the petitioner in dower. The condition attached to the purchase of house of 10 Marlas (as dower), though illegal, has also been achieved.
A baby girl has been born out of the wedlock of the spouses after the marriage, the payment of which has become due.
' In view of the above discussion, we allow this petition to the extent that the petitioner is entitled to the payment of dower in the shape of 10 Marlas house. With the above modification, this petition stands disposed of. The parties, to bear their own costs.