IN THE COURT OF MUHAMMAD YASIN, JUDGE FAMILY COURT, GUJRANWALA. Family Suit No. 356. Date of Institution: 21.03.2019. Date of Decision: 19.12.2020. TAYYABA IFTIKHAR VS. __ MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR. SUIT FOR DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE, RECOVERY OF MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCE, DELIVERY EXPENSES AND DOWER. JUDGMENT. Through this judgment this court intends to decide above titled suit, 2. To say it briefly, as per plaint, marriage between partivs (plaintiff and defen jan) was solemnized on 01.12.2017 in liew of prompt dower Rs.5,000/- and deferred dower Rs.50,000. At the time of marriage, valuable dowry articles were given to the plaintiff, which are in the custody of the defendant. Soon after Rukhsati, plaintiff started to live with defendant and left no dent in perjorming her matrimonial obligations. Out of this wedlock, one isswe/ minor son was born (aged about 04-months), who is alive and in custody of defendant, In the beginning of the marriage, behavior of defendant was cordial towards the plaintiff but later on, dejendant used to quarrel with plaintiff on petty household matters wut, plaintiff bome all these cruelties just for sake of her success in matrimonial life. Out of this wedlock Minor Farhaj Iftikhar was bom tivough operation and delivery expenses were paid by parents of plaintiff. Finally on 28.12.2018, defendant expelled! the plenty hi house in three wearing a arels ajter severe beating. From that time period, neither defendant paid maintenance allowance to te L F plaintiffs nor tried to reconcile the matter. This cruel and humiliated behavior of the defendant caused great agony and pain to the plaintiff. Now, plaintiff has developed great hatred in her heart for the defendant due to his cruel and unbearable attitude. It is impossible for her to live with defendant within the limits prescribed by Allah Abnighty and she wants dissolution of marriage on the isis of Khula, Defendant has a mobile shop in Peoples Colony buisalabad, His monthly income is more than Rs.1,00,000/-. He can casily pay Rs. 20,000/- per month to the plaintiff. The cause of |, when defendant refused to accede the genuine requests of plaintiff. Hence, this suit. uction accrued, _4Conversely, defendant appeared before court and submitted his contested written statement while raising some preliminary objections. Defendant contended that plaintiff left house of defendant without any reason and refused to join. She is selfdeserted and disobedient. So, plaintiff is not entitled for recovery of maintenance allowance, Moreover delivery expenses were puid by defendant. Defendant has a business of sale purchase of old mobile. He further stated that plaintiff has filed this suit just to blackmail and harass the defendant. Lastly prayed for the of the instant suit missal 4 After submission of written statement pre-trial reconciliation proceedings were conducted which ended as failure. Marriage between the parties was dissolved on the basis of Kila. On 17.09.2019 to resolve the controversy between the parties following issues were framed. ISSUES. 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover Maintenance Allowance from the defendant as per facts stated in the Para No.7 of the plaint? OPP Ml. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Delivery Expenses from the defendant incurred on the birth of the minor as per facts stated in the Para No.8 of the plaint? OPP I. Whether the plaintijf is entitled to recover Dower Amount from the defendant according to the column of ‘Nikah Nama” u/s 10{5) of Punjab Family Court Act amended 2015? OPP WV. Relief. After framing of issues, both the parties were directed to produce and tendered their respective oral as well as documentary evidence, EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF: 5. In plaintiff evidence Tayyaba Iftikhar, plaintiff herself, stepped into witness box as PW-1, and got recorded her statement. She also tendered her sworn affidavit as Exh.P1, bearing her signature and thumb impression as Exh.P1/1. Other witness of plaintiff, namely, Muhammad Tayyab Iftikhar s/o Iftikhar Ahmad appeared as PW-2 and tendered his sworn affidavit as Exh.P2, bearing his signature and thumb impression as Exh.P2/1 In documentary evidence, plaintiff submitted her Nikah-Nama as Mark-A, copy of FIR as Mark-B, copy of medical report as Mark-C caid closed the oral as well as documentary evidence.LVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT: 6 On the other side, Muhammad Ahmad [ftikhar, efendant himself stepped into witness box as DW-I, and got ccorded his statement. He also tendered his swom affidavit as Xxh.D1 bearing his signature and thumb impression as E: Dis/i ther wimess of defendant namely Mohsin Aslam s/o Muhammad Aslam appeared as DW-2, and tendered his sworn affidavit as D-2. bearing his signature/thumb impression as Exh.D-2/1, in locumentary evidence, defendant submitted copy of bail application ind order dated 02.05.2019 as Mark-A, birth certificate of minor as Mark-B, birth certificate of Union Council as Mark-C, laboratory s Mark-D, receipts of MD Hospital Faisalabad as Mark-£ and Mark and closed the oral as well as documentary evidence. 7 Written arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the defendant, Arguments advanced by leamed counsel for the plaintiff have been heard and record has also been perused. issue wise findings are as follows:- ISSUE NO.1. My 8. The burden to prove this issue was placed upon the plaintiff. To prove this issue, she herself appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and submitted her sworn affidavit as Exh-P1 She diso produced PW-2 in support of her case. It is the stance of plaintiff that defendant has mobile shop in Peoples Colony. While on the other hand, it is stance of the defendant that he has a business of sale purchase of old mobile Further perusal of record reveals that during cross-examination DW.1 stated that business for sale purchase of mobile is owned by me, Furthermore DW.1 during cross-examination stated it is incorrect that my income is more than Rs.1,00,000/-. Plaintiff did not produced any documentary evidence relates to monthly income of dejenciant, Furthermore perusal of record reveals that plaintiff has claimed her maintenance allowance from previous two months till Kddet period. it is well settled principle of law that the wife is only entitlecl to recover maintenance allowance from his husband in such situation when she is living with her husband and is performing his matrivionial obligations. Perusal of record shows that suit to the extent of dissolution of marriage had already been decreed in favour of pla ntiff vide order dated 17.09.2019 which means that plaintiff is ( i} a k ayno more wife of defendant; hence, this issue is decided partially in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant. ISSUE NO.2. 8. The burden to prove this issue was placed upon the plaintiff. To prove this issue, she herself appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and submitted her swom affidavit as Exh-P1. She also produced PW-2 in support of her case. It is stance of the plaintiff that delivery expenditures incurred on the birth of the minor as Rs.60,000/- was paid by her Parents. On the other hand, it is the stance of the defendant delivery expenditures were paid by him. Perusal of record reveals that DW.1 during cross-examination stated that birth of minor took place in the house of plaintiff parents. DW.1 further stated that it is incorrect that delivery expenditures were paid by the parents of the plaintiff. DW.1 further stated that birth of minor to: i place through operation. DW.1 further stated that [ have no receipt regarding payinent of delivery expenditures. Furthermore, DW.2 during cross- examination stated that delivery expenditures were not paid before me. DW.2 during cross-examination further stated that I was not present in hospital at the time of birth of minor. Further perusal of record reveals that DW.1 is resident of Faisalabad whereas plaintiff is resident of Gujranwala and minor took birth in Gujranwala then it will be presumed that the delivery expenditures were paid the plaintiff's parents, Perusal of record reveals that plaintiff has not produced any receipt regarding the delivery expenditures. According to customs deeply rooted in our society, the expenses are mos ly incurred upon the birth of child either in huge or small whether the birth is taken place through operation or through normal way. Keeping in view the above discussion this issues is hwreby decided in favour of plaintiff’ against the defendant and plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.40,000/- from the defendant.. This issue is partially decided in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant. ISSUE NO. 10 The Durden to prove this issue was placed upon the plaintiff. To prove this issue, she herself appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and submitted her sworn affidavit as Exh-P1. She also produced PW-2 in support of her case.{EAS stance of the plaintiff At the time of marriage r was fixed Rs.50,000/- which is still ferred dower unpaid while he other hand, DW.1 during cross-examination stated that wer was fixed at time of marriage as prompt dower Rs.5000/- 4d deferred dower Rs.50,000/-. Furthermore, DW.1 further stated WT haw paid deferred dower to the plaintiff’ at fi irst night of : wnage. DW.2 during cross-examination stated that I was not “Sent at the spot when deferred dower was paid to plaintiff her perusal of record reveals that plaintiff has claimed for ferred cower Rs.50,000/- from defendant. Version of plaintiff és at marriage was solemnized on 01.12.2017, 7 in liew of prompt wer Rs.5000/- and deferred dower Rs.50,000/-. Lx ferred dawwer still unpaid even after repeated request of plai intiff. In the view of : 11's court, deferred dower is that dower which is paict at the time of “solution: of marriage either by death or divorce. Perusal of record Sows that suit to the extent of dissolution of marriage had already jen decreed in favour of plaintiff vide order dated 17.09.2019 ich means that plaintiff is no more wife of defendant; hence, she entitled for 50% deferred dower. This issue is partial decicied in } vor of plaintiff and against the defendant. AELIEF, : Keeping in view the above discussion, plaintiff is < idtled to recover maintenance allowance @ Rs.4,000/- per month “tly for the Iddat period. Plaintiff is entitled to recover delivery « penses Rs.40,000/. from defendant. Plaintiff is entitled for 1 cover 50 deferred dower from defendant. No orde : i : { | | r as {0 costs. | veree sheet be prepared accordingly. Ahbned of this court is « reeted tw consign file to revord room after its due completion and © mpilation, : tnounceit 112.2020 Muhamjnad Yasin Judge Family Court, Gujranwala it is certified that this J ich page has b judgment consists of 05- pages. Ak Judge Fabity Court Gujranwala