DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.----This petition shall also decide cross Writ Petition No.333 of 2003 because both have arisen out of the same judgment of Additional District Judge-VII, Peshawar modifying the judgment and decree of the Family Court in Suit No.72 of 1980.
2. The Family Court granted decree for recovery of Rs.50,000 as dower alongwith 5 Marla's plot situated at Satellite Town, Rawalpindi.
3. It also granted maintenance in favour of the petitioner No. 1 for an amount of Rs.500 p.m. From October, 1993 to 27-3-1995 for the period of Iddat and also granted a decree for maintenance of Rs.10,000 p.m. From September, 1993 to, October, 1999 and till the time the minors petitioners 2 to 4 attain majority.
4. The appeal Court disallowed the maintenance allowance to petitioner No.1, against the respondent and also disallowed the cash amount of dower of Rs.50,000 to the petitioner No. 1 while the rest of the decree of the Family Court was maintained.
5. Both the contesting parties have impugned the said judgment and decree of the appeal Court.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
6. Brief but relevant and short facts are that petitioner and respondent No.1 entered into wedlock on 10-5-1990. The couple lived amicably as were and husband and during the period of happy union petitioners 2 to 4 were born of the said wedlock. The parties thereafter generated hate against each other in 1993 while living in U.S.A. Which resulted into desertion of the petitioner who came to Pakistan alongwith her three sons and re--settled here at Peshawar. This state of affairs took a further unhappy turn when the petitioner was divorced by respondent-- husband on 27-3-1995.
7. The petitioner, thereafter instituted a suit seeking different reliefs in the Family Court at Peshawar which was contested by respondent No. 1 whereafter the above decree was passed which was modified in appeal as mentioned above.
8. As we are mindful of our writ jurisdiction where re-appraisal of evidence is neither the practice of a High Court nor it is permissible under the law, therefore, we would confine ourselves only to the serious illegality, if any, committed by the learned Court below.
9. The Nikahnama which was duly executed by the parties is not in dispute but the contents therein are given different meaning by the parties, therefore, we will see as to whether it was misconstrued and so misinterpreted which has resulted into serious miscarriage of justice or not. The said dower I deed stipulates three kinds of dowers firstly Rs.50,000 in cash, secondly 30 Tolas gold ornament and 5 Marlas plot situated in Satellite Town, Rawalpindi.
10. The learned appeal Court in its judgment at page 4 has drawn unfair conclusion from the above entries mentioned in the dower deed. The findings recorded therein are apparently self-clashing and are devoid of legal merits. The learned Judge took the view that in case Rs.50,000 in cash, as a dower is not paid then the petitioner plaintiff would be entitled to the plot and the payment of cash amount has not been proved, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the plot only.
11. The view taken by the appeal Court, the construction placed on the entries of the dower deed is its figment of imagination, is entirely untenable. On perusal we could not find the stipulation of the nature inferred there from by the appeal Court below.
The well-entrenched principle on construction of a deed/document is that the contents therein must be given usual meaning in discovering the true intention of the parties. The relevant column does not contain any stipulation that the above 3 kinds of dower was alternative arrangements i.e. The one exclude the other. If the intention of the parties was such then they would have expressly mentioned it through clear words. The omission in this regard is meaningful, deliberate and clearly convey the intention of the executants that all the three types of dower was agreed upon, it in no way is a departure from a practice prevalent in our society where beside cash, ornaments, dower is also fixed by giving immovable property, thus the learned appeal Court clearly misdirected itself in drawing an inference therefrom a self-assumed one which is fallacious and could not be sustained except at the cost of injustice. We therefore, entertain no amount of doubt that the dower in all the 3 kinds was agreed upon and fixed to be paid.
So far the payment of dower in shape of gold ornament is concerned that has been made because in the relevant column the presence of the same has been shown at that time and to the same effect is the statement of respondent, the combined effect of the same has proved the payment to the petitioner while about cash payment the dower deed is silent, which therefore, remained unpaid like 5 Marlas plot which is yet to be given to the petitioner.
12. For the above reasons, we are of the view that the dower amount of Rs.50,000 in cash has not been paid which was rightly decreed by the trial Court after proper appraisal of evidence on record and the appeal Court has interfered with such findings for no valid and legal reasons thus the findings recorded to this effect by the appeal Court are set aside. The petitioner is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.50,000 as a part of her dower like 5 Marlas plot. The rest of the decree of the appeal Court is maintained.
13. This writ petition is partly allowed in the above terms with no order as to costs, while cross Writ Petition No.333 of 2003 filed by respondent No. 1 is dismissed with no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.