Nausheen (written Statement)

IN THE COURT OF MR. NADEEM KHIZAR RANJHA, LEARNED JUDGE FAMILY COURT, MULTAN.

Family Suit No. ____________/2002 In re: Mst. Nausheen

VS.

Nisar Ahmad

SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF DOWER (WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 27.11.02)

Respectfully Sheweth: Preliminary Objections: 1.

That the marriage of plaintiff along-with defendant was solemnized according to Shara-e-Muhammadi on 26.1.2001 in lieu of total Haq Maher of 5½ tolas golden ornaments valuing Rs. 40,000/- (forty thousand rupees). Defendant paid the Haq Maher promptly on 26.1.01 to the plaintiff in shape of golden ornaments consisting of Haar, Kantey, Nath, Tikka and a ring which fact gains strength from the perusal of column No. 13 & 14 of Nikahnama of which the plaintiff is signatory. It is a settled law that once a dower is paid the liability of dower is satisfied and wife is not entitled to claim the same. Therefore, in view of above facts, the present suit is not maintainable and hence, merits dismissal.

ON FACTS: 1.

That para No. 1 of the plaint is correct to this extent that marriage in between plaintiff and defendant took place on 26.1.01 in lieu of 5½ tolas of golden ornaments valuing Rs. 40,000/-, which were paid promptly by defendant to plaintiff on 26.1.01 in shape of golden ornaments detailed above, which fact is incorporated in column No.’s 13 & 14 of Nikah Nama. As far as 1/3rd share in house is concerned, it was not fixed in Haq Maher, but was decided that plaintiff would live separately in that 1/3 portion as long as she remained loyal wife of defendant. So, she stayed in that portion as long as she remained loyal wife of defendant. Remaining para is incorrect.

2.

Tat para No. 2 of plaint is incorrect. Dower has been duly paid to the plaintiff.

3.

That contents of para No. 3 are self-contradictory and concocted and hence are not correct. Actual facts are that after Rukhsati, the defendant was given memorable welcome by plaintiff and his family members comprising of old ailing mother and a younger unmarried sister. She was provided all the facilities by defendant, who tried his level’s best to keep her happy by all means. As per desire by plaintiff’s parents, the portion allocated to bride was to be renovated and for that purpose, dowry articles were not shifted to defendant’s house. That after a lapse of 4 or 5 months of Rukhsati, it was conveyed to defendant through plaintiff that this marriage had been solemnized against the wishes of plaintiff, which fact further gained strength when the defendant, per chance, picked up a love letter from her purse, which was addressed to her by her well-wisher. When this fact was made clear to plaintiff, she instead of showing repentance, started cursing defendant by acknowledging the same. Defendant being gentle, simple and loyal, requested her to forget the past and

let us live harmonious and pious life in future, but to no effect. As stated above, this marriage being against the wishes of plaintiff, she tried to commit suicide as a resentment 4 or 5 months later, but due to timely intervention of defendant’s mother & sister, her life was saved, but this incident was duly conveyed to plaintiff’s parents and Illaqa Nazim. Thereafter on 13.3.02 after the death of defendant’s mother, plaintiff on her own left the defendant’s house in his absence and took away all the golden ornaments, wedding ring of defendant, Rs. 10,000/- net cash, saving bonds worth Rs. 20,000/-, Rado wrist watch, cassette player (National) and her clothes and other things. Defendant through various Panchayats, tried his level’s best to rehabilitate her at his own house, but to no effect, hence a suit for Restitution of Conjugal Rights was filed by defendant against the plaintiff on 12.4.02, which is pending disposal. This suit has been filed as a counter blast of that suit. 4.

That para No. 4 is absolutely incorrect and hence is not admitted. In view of circumstances narrated above in reply of para No. 3, it is requested that this Hon’ble Court being Qazi under the Islamic dispensation, has given vast powers to finalize the matter as deems fit in accordance with law, justice & equity. Letters addressed to plaintiff by her well wisher shall be produced in evidence.

5.

That para No. 5 is incorrect. Full details of actual facts have been given above.

6.

That para No. 6 is incorrect.

7.

That para No. 7 is incorrect.

8.

That para No. 8 is legal.

9.

That para No. 9 is legal.

Prayer clause is frivolous, baseless, concocted and false, hence, it is humbly requested that this shit of the plaintiff may kindly be dismissed with cost. Humble Defendant, Dated: ________ AAMER AZIZ QAZI, Advocate High Court, 123-District Courts, Multan.