Mst. Shamim Akhtar vs Additional District Judge Rawalpindi S — 2025 MLD 523 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

Mst. Shamim Akhtar VS Additional District Judge Rawalpindi S.5, Sched.---Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance, stipulated amount for pronouncing divorce and 04 tolas gold---Nikahnama, Clause 18---Scope---Prompt and deferred dower---Meaning---Parties had mutually agreed that in case of divorce or contracting second marriage by the husband/respondent, respondent would provide the stipulated amount as specified in Cl. 18 of Nikahnama---Contention of the respondent was that the condition imposed in the Nikahnama was contrary to the law and Islamic injunctions---Validity---Where no specific or definite period is settled for the payment of deferred dower, wife would become entitled to dower at the event of dissolution of marriage or on the death of any of the spouses---If any sum or property is agreed to be paid or given to the wife on the happening of some specified event, the same would become payable on the occurrence of that specified event as a deferred dower---There was a specific stipulation in the Nikahnama that in case of divorcing the petitioner or contracting second marriage by the respondent, he would pay an amount of Rs 300,000/- to the petitioner---Admittedly, respondent had divorced the petitioner, therefore, petitioner was entitled to recover the amount as stipulated in Nikahnama by construing the same as deferred dower---Respondent had failed to substantiate his stance as taken in his written statement qua pronouncing of divorce upon petitioner on her insistence---Family Court rightly resolved the issue qua entitlement of respondent for receiving stipulated amount, whereas, Appellate Court fell in obvious error disentitling petitioner from recovering that amount---Petitioner failed to substantiate her claim that the respondent snatched gold ornaments from her as petitioner in her cross-examination acknowledged that on the day of alleged snatching, respondent was abroad---Constitutional petitions were allowed and judgment and decree passed by Appellate Court was set aside to the extent of entitling the petitioner to recover 04 tolas gold ornaments and declined her claim to recover the stipulated amount from the respondent and to that extent judgment and decree of Trial Court was restored.

Mst. Shamim Akhtar vs Additional District Judge Rawalpindi S — 2025 MLD 523 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 MLD