' The petitioner, Muhammad Ashiq, has assailed the judgment of respondent No,1, learned Additional District Judge, Okara, dated 2-11-2000, whereby he had accepted the appeal of respondent No,3, Mst. Shafqat Yousaf, against the judgment and decree of respondent ' No,2, learned Judge Family Court, Okara, dated 8-5-2000. Respondent No,2 had dismissed the suit of respondent No,3 for recovery of dower amount of Rs,50,000 while respondent No,1 had accepted her appeal and decreed her suit in the amount of Rs,50,000.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that Rs,50,000 dower was fixed in the Nikahnama as deferred dower and Rs,500 was fixed as prompt dower which was paid at the spot; that the balance amount of Rs,50,000 was paid to respondent No,3 on 22-6-1998 regarding which respondent No,3 signed a written receipt/agreement in the presence of witnesses to the effect that she has received Rs,50,000 from the petitioner and nothing more remained to be paid to her as regards her dower; that the respondent No,3 had filed suit for recovery of dower mala fide on 8-9- 1999 after the petitioner had divorced her on 10-6-1999 and she had admitted her signatures and thumb-impression on the document but denied having received the amount although the amount was clearly stated in the deed, and respondent being a School Teacher was presumed to have read the contents of the deed before having fixed her signatures and thumb-impression thereon and, therefore, respondent No,2 had correctly arrived at the conclusion that respondent No,3 had received Rs,50,000 and had dismissed her suit, but respondent No,1 had illegally accepted the appeal of respondent No,3 and had come to the conclusion that the receipt/agreement/deed had not been executed with the informed consent of respondent No,3, that respondent No,1 had not properly appraised the written statement of the petitioner while observing that no mention of the deed was made in the written statement, although the petitioner had specifically mentioned in Preliminary Objection No,3 that amount of Rs,50,000 had been paid to respondent No,3 in the presence of witnesses, and the same had been acknowledged by respondent No,3 in writing, which would be produced by him at the time of evidence; that if there is no specific mention of the deed in the written statement and it had not been listed in the list of reliance, it could not be deemed to be fatal to the case of the petitioner since the Evidence Act is not strictly applicable to the proceedings before the Family Court.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No,3 has vehemently opposed the petition on the ground that the dower amount of Rs,50,000 had admittedly been fixed between the parties; that the petitioner in his written statement had not specifically mentioned the receipt/ agreement/deed which he referred to when he appeared as his own witness in the Court nor was there any mention of this deed in the list of reliance submitted by him alongwith his written statement nor were marginal witnesses of this deed mentioned in the list of witnesses produced by him, and in such circumstances the alleged deed could not be considered in evidence by respondent No,2 since the petitioner had not complied with the provisions of section 9 of the Family Courts Act, 1964 which provide that the parties must produce alongwith their pleadings complete list of witnesses alongwith a precise of the evidence that each witness is expected to give and that if he relies on any document in his possession he shall produce copy of the same alongwith the written statement, and in such circumstances respondent No,2 had illegally allowed the deed to be exhibited despite the objection in this behalf. He has further argued that respondent No,3 was never confronted with this document when she entered in the witness-box nor was any marginal witness produced by the petitioner and, therefore, respondent No,1 had rightly accepted the appeal of the petitioner and decreed her suit for dower. In this behalf learned counsel for respondent No,3 has relied on the following judgments:-- ' Syed Qamar Ahmad and another v. Anjum Zafar and others 1994 SCM R 65 and Sikandar Hayat and 4 others v. Master Fazal Karim PLD 1971 SC 730.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the judgments of respondents Nos.1 and 2 as well as written statement filed by the petitioner and the statements of the parties in the Court. The fact that amount of Rs,50,000 was fixed as dower at the time of Nikah is admitted between the parties. The petitioner in his written statement had taken objection that the amount had been paid and he will produce a written document to substantiate this assertion at the time of production of evidence. However, the document he relied on was neither appended with the written statement nor was mentioned in the list of reliance. Respondent No,2, learned Judge Family Court while dismissing the suit of respondent No,3 has observed that the petitioner had produced the agreement, dated 22-6-1998 on which respondent No,3 had placed her signatures and thumb-impressions. It has also been observed that one Abdul Ghafoor, who is the marginal witness, had come with the petitioner in the Court and had stated that he sold two buffaloes in order to raise the dower amount which was paid to respondent No,3 in the presence of witnesses. It has further been observed that Abdul Ghafoor as well as the petitioner had denied that the signatures of respondent No,3 were obtained through fraud, coercion or misrepresentation. Respondent No,2 has concluded that respondent No,3 is an educated School Teacher and she could not have signed the blank papers on the instigation of the petitioner and since her signatures are admitted, therefore, she had received the amount. It was also observed that respondent No,3 had never challenged the validity of the document, which was produced by the petitioner, before any competent Court of law.
5. On the other hand, respondent No,1, learned Additional District Judge has taken the view that since the petitioner had not appended the document with his written statement nor had he confronted respondent No,3 with the document he relied on when she entered the witness-box, nor he had produced the marginal witnesses, the document could not be relied on as evidence of the payment of RS,50,000.
6. After having examined the document as well as the observations of both the Courts below and hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, I agree with the conclusion of respondent No,1 that the petitioner had not complied with the provision of section 9 of the Family Courts Act, particularly subsection (1) wherein it is clearly provided that the defendant should attach with the written statement a list of his witnesses along with a precise of the evidence that each witness is expected to give and subsection (2) which provides that where a defendant relies upon a document in his possession or power, he shall produce it, or a copy thereof, in the Court along with the written statement. Furthermore, he did not even confront respondent No,3 with the document when she entered the witness-box, therefore, she had no 'opportunity to deny the execution of the same. It is also significant to note that the document on which the petitioner relies was purportedly purchased and executed on 22-6-1998 when there was no dispute between the parties and no specific mention of this document had been made by the petitioner in his written statement.
7. Since the document, on which the petitioner relied, was produced belatedly without any plausible explanation and respondent No,3 was not confronted with the same, the marginal witnesses are not related to respondent No,3 nor were they produced in the Court, therefore, the possibility that the document was product of fraud and forgery cannot be excluded.
8. Even otherwise since the parties were living amicably together and the petitioner being husband of respondent No,3 was in a position of active confidence, it is quite possible that the petitioner may have obtained signatures and thumb-impression of respondent No,3 by asserting that the document would be utilized for some purpose beneficial to her such as for obtaining insurance policy.
9. In view of the above discussion, the observations of respondent No,1 in the impugned judgment are well placed. I do not IF find any infirmity in the impugned judgment, therefore, this petition is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.