SULEMAN SHAH vs JUDGE FAMILY COURT/ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE MUZAFFARBAD S

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

SULEMAN SHAH VS JUDGE FAMILY COURT/ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE MUZAFFARBAD S.5, Sched.---Interlocutory order---Recovery of dower---Entry in Nikahnama---Petitioner/husband claimed that at the time of his marriage father of respondent/wife presented written Nikahnama mentioning specific land measuring 06 Marlas in place of the already settled dower amount and on petitioner's resistance thereupon her father admitted and showed consent upon the already settled amount of dower as Rs.500,000/- but requested that at that time, it was not possible to execute new Nikahnama, therefore, in good faith the Nikah was duly completed; that land mentioned in Nikah was a crown land which could not be alienated; that respondent/wife left the house of the petitioner on her free will; that she filed a suit for recovery of dower which was contested by the petitioner; that on the date fixed for announcement of judgment, Family Court illegally framed additional issue to ascertain the market value of the land mentioned in Nikahnama instead of announcing the judgment; that Family Court illegally allowed application of respondent for summoning official for assessment of such value---Validity---High Court observed that petitioner had already filed 3 writ petitions: Firstly, seeking amendment in written statement, which was allowed accordingly; secondly, for framing additional issue, which was allowed and the Trial Court was directed to frame additional issue in view of amended written statement; thirdly, challenged certain orders of Family Court which was accepted by High Court providing an opportunity for recording evidence of witness of respondent and providing the same to the petitioner for cross-examination on the above witness---High Court could not invoke its writ jurisdictions in a routine matter, as such jurisdiction could only be invoked in extra-ordinary situation and in exceptional circumstances, and as such no eventuality was found---Constitutional Petition was not maintainable against the impugned interlocutory orders---Trial Court committed no illegality while summoning the official as witness to assess the market value of the land mentioned in Nikahnama because it was the only way for the Trial Court to ascertain the actual market value of that property---Petitioner was neither an aggrieved party within the meaning of Art.44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, nor had locus standi to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of High Court---Petitioner brought the factual controversy through the writ petition, which could not be determined without recording evidence---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

SULEMAN SHAH vs JUDGE FAMILY COURT/ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE MUZAFFARBAD S — 2022 CLC 1454 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 CLC