C.M. No,1 of 2000 ' This application for dispensing with filing of copies of unspecified documents is dismissed.
C.M. No,2 of 2000 ' For orders to be passed in the main case, no order need be passed in this C.M. Disposed of: Main Case ' Respondent No, 1 is the wife of the petitioner. She filed two suits: one for recovery of maintenance allowance and other for recovery of her prompt dower against the petitioner. Regarding the dower, the case of the petitioner was that the petitioner had foregone her dower. So far as the claim of respondent No,1 for maintenance for herself and her children, he admitted that he had contracted a second marriage. He did not even allege that he is paying any maintenance to the children. On 1- 4-2000 the petitioner put in appearance alongwith his learned counsel and made a statement that he is prepared to pay maintenance to his wife and children @ Rs,400 per person per month.
Respondent No,1 accepted the said statement, although she had claimed maintenance @ Rs,2,100 per month for the three plaintiffs w,e,f, four years and 7 months prior to the filing of the suit.
Consequently the suit for recovery of maintenance was decreed in accordance with the statement of the petitioner. On the same date, the suit for recovery of dower was taken up wherein the petitioner made an offer that in case the, respondent No,1 takes a special oath on the Holy Qur'an that she had not given up her claim to the dower, the suit be decreed. This offer was also accepted by respondent No,1 who took the special oath in the manner offered. Consequently this suit was also decreed and the judgment and decrees in both the suits were passed on 4-2-2000.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned respondent No,2 should not have acted on the offer of the petitioner, and should have instead given him a chance to lead evidence.
According to the learned counsel the provisions of Oaths Act,1873 are not applicable to proceedings before the Family Court.
3. I am afraid the said arguments of the learned counsel are absolutely without force and do not even merit any consideration. In his writ petition, the petitioner has not even denied that he did not make the offer of his own free-will or that it was not accepted or that the oath was not taken in accordance with the same. So far as the second argument of learned counsel is concerned, the same is also without any force. There is no prohibition spelt out in any law including the Family Courts Act, 1964 and Oaths Act, 1873 that the provisions' of latter Act are not applicable to proceedings in the former Act. Reference be made to the case of "Janat Bibi v. Maula Bakhsh" (1984 CLC 368). No other point has been urged. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.