Syed SIBT HASSAN vs SABA BATOOL Ss — 2025 PLD 359 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.

Syed SIBT HASSAN VS SABA BATOOL Ss. 5, Sched. & 17---Suit for recovery of dower---agreement between the spouses qua dower to be paid in case of divorce given by husband---Validity/execution of---Beneficiary---Proof, burden of---agreement, qua dower between the parties, had been held valid and enforceable by the (appellate/District) Court ,declaring plaintiff/lady entitled for the dower amount as specified in said agreement---Petitioner (ex-husband/defendant) assailed the decree---Validity---No doubt under S. 17 of the Family Courts act, 1964 (act), the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 (QSO) and the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, (C.P.C.) are not applicable in family matters, however, as the respondent (plaintiff/lady) was the beneficiary of agreement-in-question, initially the burden of proof was on her to prove the execution of the agreement---In said behalf, respondent (plaintiff/lady) appeared as her own witness and besides producing (exhibiting) the agreement ,she also repeated the contents of the agreement in her (duly exhibited) affidavit; during the cross-examination, not only she remained consistent but was not specifically cross-examined about whether the agreement was executed in her favour or not or whether it was a forged document or was stolen by her---Respondent (plaintiff/lady) also produced two marginal witnesses of the agreement who, while appearing as witnesses, supported the claim of respondent (plaintiff/ lady)---Petitioner/defendant, while appearing as a witness, admitted that he purchased a stamp-paper, but claimed that same had been stolen and used against him subsequently, however, during cross-examination he categorically admitted that the stamp-paper of agreement was issued by him and signatures on front side as well as backside thereof were also made by him---Further, on backside of the agreement it was specifically recorded that this was for an agreement between the petitioner and respondent (parties) and petitioner's signature and his CNIC number were also mentioned there---No doubt, the scribe and the vendor of exhibited agreement were not examined but their absence actually went against the petitioner, who had to prove that the stamp-paper was issued for renewal of the license of medical store and not for agreement between the parties---Moreover, the petitioner never sought cancellation of the stamp-paper or got FIR lodged or got rapat diarised if at all his stamp-paper was stolen, as claimed by him---Oral and documentary evidence proved beyond doubt that the agreement was lawfully executed between the parties---No illegality or infirmity was noticed in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the District Court for interference---Constitutional petition, filed by defendant (ex-husband), was dismissed, in circumstances.

Syed SIBT HASSAN vs SABA BATOOL Ss — 2025 PLD 359 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD