' Respondent No,2 filed a suit for recovery of Rs,30,000 against the petitioner. According to the plaint she was married to the petitioner on 2-5-1992 and a sum of Rs,30,000 was fixed as a prompt dower.
She having demanded the dower and the same having not been paid she filed a suit for recovery of the same. In his written statement the petitioner took the plea that although the said amount of dower was fixed at the time of marriage but the parties had an understanding that the same shall not be payable by the petitioner to respondent No,2. Issues were framed and the evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned Judge, Family Court dismissed the suit of respondent No,2 vide judgment and decree, dated 15-9-1996. Feeling aggrieved she filed an appeal which was heard by a learned Additional District Judge who allowed the appeal and decreed the suit of respondent No,2.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the learned Additional District Judge has misread the evidence on record while setting aside the judgment and decree of learned Judge, Family Court and that the law on the subject has also not been properly construed. Learned counsel for respondent No,2, on the other hand, supports the impugned judgment and decree.
3. I have gone through the record of the case, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. I find that the petitioner sought to take advantage of the principle of "As-Sumat". However, what to speak of the evidence he even failed to make proper pleadings to press into service the said principle. The matter came up before the Supreme Court of Pakistan in similar circumstances in the case of Nasir Ahmad Khan v. Asmat Jehan Begum (PLD 1969 SC 194). The matter was put to test as follows:-- "The principle of As-Sum'at recognizes that when a real dower has been fixed privately, but publicly a. Second dower is fixed in inflated amount for enhancements of the prestige of the family of the bridegroom or for its glorification and the intention was never to enforce the publicly fixed dower then the dower payable is that which was fixed privately. It is stated in Fatawa-i-Alamgiri If a man were to marry a woman for a certain Sadak (dower) settled privately and announced a large amount in public {{URDU TEXT}} the subject assumes two aspects; first when a dower is settled in private, and' the' parties' then enter into' the contract (of marriage) in public for a large amount; if the dower agreed to in public is of the same nature (Jins) as that settled privately, the difference being only in respect of the one stated in public being more than the one settled in private, and the parties are agreed in its settlement (viz., the private arrangement), or the man has called evidence to prove against her (the woman) or her guardian (if she be a minor) that the dower was , that specified ( oh ) privately and the larger amount was Sum'at' (for glorification), in that case the dower will be that which was settled in private. If, however, they differ as to the amount settled privately, and the man alleges that it was 1,000 (Dirhams) and the woman denies that amount, her allegation will be accepted and the dower will be that specified in the contract, unless the husband can adduce proof (of his allegation)". Where there is no averment of any privately fixed dower, which is essential for the application of the principle of assume at the dower publicly announced and evidenced by a registered deed would be accepted and sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, -1872 would render oral evidence to prove dower to be a fictitious one in admissible."
It is by now a settled proposition that a Nikahnama duly filled up and registered in accordance with law as a public document. The parties are bound by the recitals contained therein. In the present case there is no plea or evidence that any amount was privately fixed as dower other than the dower mentioned in the said public document and as such the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the said judgment are fully applicable to the present case. This writ petition is without any force and is accordingly dismissed with costs.