LHC nixes verdicts denying dowry return – Pakistan


LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has set aside two lower court rulings in which a woman is denied the right to claim her ex-husband from her ex-husband due to the stereotype that the woman has a large family and Pashtuns does not give. a tribute to their daughters.

“A review of the court’s ruling reveals that the judge, while dismissing the applicant’s application for a refund, was so impressed that since the applicants were 12 children in total, it was not possible for him to issue a dowry. given to him by his parents, ”Judge Muhammad Shan Gul ruled in his favor, granting Ms. Sharaini’s request.

The plaintiff and her young daughter have filed a lawsuit under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act of 1964 against her ex-husband for obtaining a maintenance allowance, delivery costs and demanding the return of mortgage notes worth Rs423,526. However, his appeal, and subsequent appeal, was rejected by the lower courts.

Lower courts based on decision on suspicion of suspicion of Pashtun culture, sentencing

In his judgment, Justice Gul noted that the court had legally guided the court’s immediate dismissal of property claims. He said the decision was somewhat wrong in considering the law set by the High Court.

“On the face of it, this is questionable and inappropriate because it has no legal basis. No matter how many brothers there are, if a ruckus is happening (and it has happened) it is estimated that a donation will be made, ”he added.

The judge regretted that the appellate court had not been able to withstand the temptation to make a serious mistake based on his skeptical assertion that ‘Pashtun families do not give dowry to their daughters’.

The judge noted that there was no law or standard, which meant that Pashtuns did not pay tribute to their daughters. He notes that there is no law to say, which is why the credibility of the first appellate court in this case clearly shows that the appellate court also deceived itself legally and took the matter into consideration.

Justice Gul argued that the court, taking without evidence, the applicant’s parents’ inability to give him a dowry at the time of his marriage, due to the large foster family, or the appellate court, also thought Pashtuns. he does not pay homage to their daughters; it could only stand if the financial incapacity of the parents or the common customs of Pashtun’s descendants were officially recognized.

He states that apart from the facts mentioned in the Qanun-i-Shahadat Order 1984, no other fact can be assumed or taken as evidence without proof. He argues that the financial situation of the girl’s parents or Pashtun’s culture regarding dowry is not one of the most significant.

The judge noted: “Both of these concepts, of having a large family court and of the Pathan family, are appealing, baseless, and therefore shameful.

He set aside both the rulings of the court and the appellate court on the issue of the return of mortgages. The judge did not rule on the remaining portions of the jurisdiction relating to the provision of maintenance (of the applicant as well as of his young daughter), as well as the costs of delivery.

However, the judge notes that the question of the return of the bride’s property will be considered pending before the family court concerned. And the court shall declare the question of the return of the credit card in accordance with the foregoing as well as in accordance with the available evidence in the record and without being in any way affected by the preliminary assumptions, the order concludes.

Published Parhlo, May 7, 2022

Leave a Comment