IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.

W.P. No._____________/2001

Mst. Riffat Sultana daughter of Rafique Ahmad wife of Mirza

Khalique Baig, caste Mughal, R/o House No. 1530, Ward No. 8,
Street No. 4, Khawaja Colony, Railway Road, Multan.
Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Additional District Judge, Multan.
2. Sardar Muhammad Babar, Judge Family Court, Multan.
3. Mirza Khalique Baig S/o Sarwar Baig, caste Mughal, R/o H. No.
63, Hundred feet Road, Nuun Chowk, Shah Rukn-e-Alam
Colony, Multan.
Respondents

Writ Petition under Article 199 of

the Constitution of Islamic
Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

Respectfully Sheweth: -

1. That briefly stating facts of the writ petition are that the marriage
of the petitioner was solemnised with the respondent No. 3 on
10.8.88 in accordance with the injunctions of Islam. Out of this
wedlock, three children were born. Out of which Mirza Bilal
Baig aged about year is alive and is living with the petitioner.
From the beginning, the behaviour of the respondent No. 3 was
not amicable with the petitioner. The birth of Bilal Baig was done
as scissorian case. At this birth, the attitude of the respondent
 became very cruel. He announced that he would not own and
look after the petitioner and the baby because he did not want to
open a disabled persons home. Near about 8/9 years ago, the
respondent gave severe beating to the petitioner and turned out
her and the baby from his house in three clothes and snatched all
the dowry, other ornaments and articles of the petitioner which
were gifted to her by petitioner’s parents, relatives uncle & aunt.
Now, the petitioner is living with her relatives and earning her
and her child’s livelihood by doing manual labour. It is pertinent
to state here that the expenses upon the birth of the three children
were borne by the petitioner’s uncle and the respondent had not
spent even a single penny in this regard. Now, the respondent is
living in Saudi Arabia and his monthly income, according to his
own statement and admission is more than thirty thousand rupees
per month.

2. That in violation of the family laws Ordinance, the respondent

No. 3 has contracted another marriage without obtaining the
permission from the petitioner or from the Conciliation
Court/Chairman of the Union Council of the Halqa.

3. That the petitioner tried her level’s best that the respondent
should take her and the son to his house and bear the expenses of
their livelihood, but all in vain. Thereafter, the petitioner
instituted the suit for the recovery of dowry amount incurred
upon the purchase of the articles amounting to Rs. 400,000/-. The
respondent contested the same and the respondent No. 2 vide his
judgment and decree dated 30.5.2000, illegally decreed the suit to
the extent of Rs. 100,000/-.
The copy of plaint is Annex “A”, written statement Annex “B”,
Issue Annex “C”, Statements of the petitioner and witnesses
Annex “D”, statements of the respondent and his witness Annex
“E”, documentary evidence of the petitioner Annex “F”,
judgment Annex “G” and Decree Annex “H”.
4. That the petitioner feeling aggrieved from this judgment filed an
appeal before respondent No. 1, who vide its judgment and
decree dated 26.6.2001 very graciously dismissed the same and
thereafter directed the appellant to make up the deficiency of
court fee valuing Rs. 15,000/- within one month, otherwise, the
appeal shall stand rejected with costs. The copy of the grounds of
Appeal Annex “J”, judgment Annex “K”, and decree Annex “L”
are attached with the petition.

5. That the judgment and decree dated 26.6.2001 passed by

respondent No. 1 through which he dismissed the appeal of the
petitioner on merit and confirmed the judgment and decree of the
respondent No. 2 of one lack rupees price of dowry articles and
ordering to make up the deficiency of court fee valuing Rs.
15,000/- within one month, otherwise, the appeal shall stand
rejected with costs, (which the respondent No. 1 has already
dismissed vide his judgment as para No. 8) are not in accordance
to the injunctions of Islam. They are against law and facts of the
case. These are based on non-reading and mis-reading of
evidence adduced by the parties. These are void, ultra vires,
without jurisdiction, based on exercised of jurisdiction not
conferred upon them and based on malafide intention to the
extent of question of the price of dowry considering it as Rs.
100,000/- instead of actual price of more than 4 lacks of rupees
and are liable to be modified to the extent of the valuation of the
dowry i.e. Rs. 400,000/- on the following amongst other: -

GROUNDS

a) That Holy Qur’an and Sunnah is the Supreme

law of land; and being Muslims, we are bound to
follow the same in its strict sense. Any kind of
diversion amounts to be answerable on the Day
of Judgment herewith.

In this regard, the relevant verses from the Holy

Quran are quoted as follows: -
Surah An-Nisa (The women): -

19. O ye who believe! It is not lawful for you to inherit

women by force; And prevent them not from re-
marrying. In order to take away part of what you have
given the, Except in case they commit a clear act of
indecency; And consort with them with fairness. Then,
if you dislike them, it may be that you dislike a thing,
whilst Allah has appointed a great deal of good therein.

20. And if you should desire to change one wife for

another, And you have given one of them a heap, then
take not anything thereof. Will you take it unjustly and
with open sinfulness?

21. And how can you take it. When one of you has gone
into the other, And they (the wives) have taken from
you a most firm Covenant?

58. Surely, Allah commands you to pay back the trusts to

their owners; and then when you judge amongst men,
judge with equity. Surely, what a good advice does
Allah (advise) you with. Indeed Allah is Hearing.
Seeing.

b) That according to the prevailing law of the land, the

petitioner has adduced oral as well as documentary
evidence. But the respondents No. 1 & 2 did not
appreciate the same. They did not bother to read and
discuss the same in the impugned judgment and as such
these judgments are based on non-reading and mis-
reading.

c) That the petitioner in her examination inchief has

categorically stated that the value of the dowry articles
is Rs. 400,000/-.
 But, in the cross-examination, not a single
question/suggestion was put that the price of the dowry
was not Rs. 400,000/-.

In the same manner, Mr. Shafique Ahmad

appeared as P.W.2 and he deposed that the value of
dowry was amounting to Rs. 400,000/-.

No suggestion was put that the value of the

dowry was not Rs. 400,000/-.

Moreover, the petitioner has produced receipt and

list of dowry articles as documentary evidence Exhibit
P1 to P8 and no document as evidence is adduced by
the respondents No. in their rebuttal.
As per law, when something is stated in
examination inchief and no suggestion is put to rebut
the same, then it will be considered that the other party
has admitted the same as true.
In the instant case, the petitioner and her
witnesses have categorically stated that the value of the
dowry articles is Rs. 400,000/- and not a single
suggestion was put that the value of the dowry is not
Rs. 400,000/-. It means that the respondent No. 3 has
accepted and admitted as true that the value of dowry of
the petitioner is Rs. 400,000/-. Therefore, the
respondents No. 1 & 2 were bound to decree the suit of
the petitioner as prayed for i.e. to the tune of Rs.
400,000/-.
The respondents No. 1 & 2 have erred by not
decreeing the suit as prayed for.

d) That feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the

respondents No. 1 & 2, the petitioner had invoked the
appellate jurisdiction of the respondent No. 1. The
respondent No. 1 was legally bound to peruse the
record of the case and give his own independent
 findings upon the crucial issues, but he has not done the
same in accordance with law and illegally confirmed
the decision of respondent No. 2.

e) That petitioner has proved his case beyond reasonable

doubt and as such she is entitled to the decree upto the
tune of Rs. 400,000/-.

f) That the petitioner is living from hand to mouth. She

has no proper and profitable source of income and the
respondent No. 1 has not given any relief and dismissed
the appeal without any cogent reasons. And thereafter to
block the way of the petitioner to knock the doors of the
Higher forum, the respondent has malafidely passed
such a harsh order to pay the court fee. Had the
petitioner be given some relief, then the petitioner
would be in a position to pay the court fee. In this way,
the judgment and decree of the respondent No. 1 is
illegal, ultra vires and based on malafide intentions.

g) That petitioner has no other efficacious and speedy

remedy but to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of
the Hon’ble High Court.

Keeping in view the above-mentioned

facts, it is respectfully prayed that writ, direction
or order may very graciously be issued that the
judgments and decrees of the respondents to the
extent of valuation of Dowry articles assessing as
Rs. 100,000/- (one lac rupees) are illegal, ultra
vires, without jurisdiction and malafide and the
same may very graciously be modified and case
of the petitioner may very graciously be decreed
as prayed for and amount of the decree be may
very graciously be increased from Rs. 100,000/-
to Rs. 400,000/-.
 Any other writ, order, direction or relief
which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may please
be extended in the favour of petitioner to meet
the ends of justice.

Humble Petitioner,

Dated: ___________

Through: -
Syed Muhammad Afaq Shah,
Advocate High Court,
93-District Courts, Multan.

CERTIFICATE: -
Certified as per instructions of the client,
that this is the first petition on the subject
matter. No such petition has earlier been
filed before this Hon’ble Court.
Advocate
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

W.P. No. ______________/2001

Mst. Riffat Sultana Vs. A.D.J. etc.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Mst. Riffat Sultana daughter of Rafique Ahmad wife of
Mirza Khalique Baig, caste Mughal, R/o House No.
1530, Ward No. 8, Street No. 4, Khawaja Colony,
Railway Road, Multan.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above-mentioned petition are true and correct
to the best of my knowledge and belief and
nothing has been kept concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of January 2001 that the contents of this affidavit
are true & correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief.
 DEPONENT

IN the lahore high court, multan bench, multan.

In re: C.M. No. _____________/2001

In
W.P. No.____________/2001

Mst. Riffat Sultana Vs. A.D.J. etc.

APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE

FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURES.
=========================================

Respectfully Sheweth:-
That certified copies of Annexures “A to H” are not
available. However, uncertified/photo state copies of the
same have been annexed with the petition, which are true
copies of original documents.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copies
of documents.
PETITIONERS

Dated: __________

Through: -
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

In re: C.M. No. _____________/2001

In
W.P. No.____________/2001

Mst. Riffat Sultana Vs. A.D.J. etc.

DISPENSATION APPLICATION.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Mst. Riffat Sultana daughter of Rafique Ahmad wife of
Mirza Khalique Baig, caste Mughal, R/o House No.
1530, Ward No. 8, Street No. 4, Khawaja Colony,
Railway Road, Multan.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above-mentioned application are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief
and nothing has been kept concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of January 2001 that the contents of this affidavit
are true & correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief.
 DEPONENT

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.

W.P. No.____________/2001

Mst. Riffat Sultana Vs. A.D.J. etc.

INDEX

S. No. NAME OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXES PAGES

1 Urgent Form
2 Stamp Paper worth Rs. 500/-
3 Writ Petition.
4 Affidavit
5
6
7
8 Dispensation Application.
9 Affidavit.
10 Application U/s 151 C.P.C.
11 Affidavit.
12 Vakalatnama
PETITIONERS
Dated: ____________
Through: -
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

W.P. No._____________/2001

1. Mst. Riffat Sultana daughter of Rafique Ahmad wife of Mirza

Khalique Baig, caste Mughal, R/o House No. 1530, Ward No.
8, Street No. 4, Khawaja Colony, Railway Road, Multan.
2. Bilal Baig S/o Mirza Khalique Baig, caste Mughal, R/o H.
No. 1530, Ward No. 8, Street No. 4, Khawaja Colony,
Railway Road, Multan.
Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Additional District Judge, Multan.
2. Sardar Muhammad Babar, Judge Family Court, Multan.
3. Mirza Khalique Baig S/o Sarwar Baig, caste Mughal, R/o H.
No. 63, Hundred feet Road, Nuun Chowk, Shah Rukn-e-Alam
Colony, Multan.
Respondents

Writ Petition under Article 199 of

the Constitution of Islamic
Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That briefly stating facts of the writ petition are that the
marriage of the petitioner was solemnised with the respondent
No. 3 on 10.8.88 in accordance with the injunctions of Islam.
Out of this wedlock, three children were born. Now, Mirza
Bilal Baig aged about 10 years is alive and is living with the
petitioner. From the beginning, the behaviour of the
 respondent No. 3 was not amicable with the petitioner. The
birth of Bilal Baig was happened as scissorian case. At this
birth, the attitude of the respondent became very cruel. He
announced that he would not own and look after the petitioner
and the baby because he did not want to open a disabled
persons home. Near about 8/9 years ago, the respondent gave
severe beating to the petitioner and turned out her and the
baby from his house in three clothes and snatched all the
dowry, other ornaments and articles of the petitioner which
were gifted to her by petitioner’s parents, relatives uncle &
aunt. Now, the petitioner is living with her relatives and
earning her and her child’s livelihood by doing manual labour.
It is pertinent to state here that the expenses upon the birth of
the three children were borne by the petitioner’s uncle and the
respondent had not spent even a single penny in this regard.
Now, the respondent is living in Saudi Arabia and his monthly
income, according to his own statement and admission is
more than thirty thousand rupees per month.

2. That in violation of the family laws Ordinance, the respondent

No. 3 has contracted another marriage without obtaining the
permission from the petitioner or from the Conciliation
Court/Chairman of the Union Council of the Halqa.

3. That the petitioner instituted the suit for the recovery of six
years past as well as future maintenance allowance from the
respondent No. 3 amounting to Rs. 7,000/- per month, on
14.3.98. The suit was contested by the respondent and the
learned Judge Family Court/respondent No. 2 decreed the suit
to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- per month per head, vide his
judgment and decree dated 3.5.2000. The copy of the plaint is
Annex “A”, written statement Annex “B”, Issue Annex “C”,
statements of the witnesses of the plaintiff/petitioner Annex
“D”, statement of the witnesses of the respondent No. 3
Annex “E”, judgment Annex “F” and decree Annex “G”.
4. That the petitioner, feeling aggrieved from the impugned
judgment and decree instituted an appeal before the
respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 3 also instituted appeal
before the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 vide his
judgment and decree dated 26.6.2001 dismissed both the
appeals and upheld the judgment and decree passed by the
respondent No. 2 dated 30.5.2001. Copy of the Appeal of the
petitioner is Annex “H”, judgment Annex “J”, and decree
Annex “K”.

5. That the judgment and decree passed by the respondent No. 1

through which he has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner
and upheld the judgment and decree of the learned Family
Court, is illegal, ultra-vires, without jurisdiction, with
malafide intention, against law and facts, based on non-
reading and misreading of evidence and record of the case, as
such liable to be set aside on the following amongst other: -

GROUNDS

i) That the petitioner has by filing recovery suit claimed

an amount of Rs. 7,000/- per month as maintenance
allowance for the period of six years past and for the
future. Thereafter, the petitioner increased the amount
of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month.
The respondent, while appearing as his own witness,
has admitted in his own statement that he has been
earning an amount of Rs. 30,000/- per month. In this
way, the case of the petitioner was proved beyond
reasonable doubt that the respondent is in a position to
pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month easily. But the
learned court/respondent No. 2 passed a decree for an
amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month per head as
maintenance allowance, it is like “giving a drop of
water from the ocean to a thirsty person”.
Sura An-Nisa (The women)

34. Men are protectors over women, on account of that by

means of what Allah has made some of them eminent
above the others, and on account of what they spend out
of their belongings.

59. O you who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the

messenger, and those who have power of command
amongst you; therefore, if you differ in anything, then
refer it back to Allah and the messenger, if you believe
in Allah and the Future Day. This is better and an
excellent finish.

105. Surely, We have sent down this Book to thee with the
truth. That thou mayest judge amongst men by means
of what Allah has shewn thee. And be NOT A
PLEADER IN FAVOUR OF THE TRATIORS.

106. And ask forgiveness of Allah; Surely, Allah is

FORGIVING, MERCIFUL.

107. And argue not on behalf of those who harbour

treacherous, sinful.

Surah Al-Baqara (The Cow).

233. And mother should suckle their children for two

complete years, in the case of those who wish to
complete their period of suckling. And it is the duty of
father of the child to feed them and clothe them with
fairness. No soul is burdened but to the extent of it
capacity, LET not the mother suffer injury on account
of her child; and a similar (law) holds for his heir; But
if they both desire to wean (the child) by mutual
consent and counsel, then there is no blame on them
(either) And if you (men) desire to provide a wet nurse
for your children, then there is no blame on you, when
 you pay what you agree to pay with fairness; And
reverence Allah, And know that Allah sees what you do.

236. There is no blame on you if you divorce your wives

whom you have and touched, Or for whom you have
not fixed a portion; And make provision for them, the
well-to-do according to his means And the shortened in
circumstances according to his means, A provision with
fairness; A duty incumbent on all doers of good.

237. And if you divorce them before you have touched them
But you have appointed for them a certain portion then
(pay) half of what you have appointed unless they
remit, or he remits in whose hand is the marriage tie;
and if you remit it is nearer to reverence; And forget not
benevolence amongst yourselves; for Allah sees what
you do.

ii) That in this age of inflation, Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand)

is not a heavy amount. The petitioner No. 2 is born
disabled and a huge amount is to be spent on his
medicine and other formalities. The respondent No. 3
who is earning Rs. 30,000/- per month can easily give
an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance
allowance. According to Shariat, (the Supreme law of
the world) and the Family laws prevailing in the
country, the respondent No. 3 is duty bound to look
after his wife and children and pay maintenance
allowance according to his own capacity. While he is
earning Rs. 30,000/- per month, then he can easily
spend an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month.
But while deciding the case, the respondent No. 2
has not appreciated this aspect and illegally decreed the
case to the extent of Rs. 1,000/- per month per head.
And in appeal, the respondent No. 1 has neither
touched nor discussed this contention of the petitioner
and the enhancement of maintenance allowance upto
 Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand rupees) and rejected the
appeal of the petitioner without giving any kind of
verdict in this regard.

iii) That it is the duty of the learned respondent No. 1 to

give judgment on the issues raised by the petitioners but
the learned respondent No. 1 has neither discussed nor
given any verdict about the main plea of the petitioners
that the decretal amount may very graciously be
increased from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand
rupees). It means that the judgment given by the
respondent No. 1 is against law and based on on-
reading and mis-reading of the evidence.

iv) That, while deciding the appeal of the petitioner, the

respondent No. 1 has not used his jurisdiction properly.

v) That the decision of the respondents No.1 and 2 are

harsh and are not based on equity; and are based on
malafide.

vi) That the judgments under this right are against the
injunctions of Islam and as such not maintainable.

vii) That the learned respondent No. 1 has not applied his
mind and has discussed the appeal in stereotype style.

6. That the petitioners have no other efficacious and speedy

remedy, but to invoke the extra-ordinary constitutional
jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court.

Under these circumstances, it is humbly

prayed that writ, direction and order may very
graciously be passed that the judgments of
learned respondents No. 1 & 2 are illegal, ultra-
vires, without jurisdiction, with malafide
intentions, against law and facts of the case,
based on non-reading and misreading of
evidence, without lawful authority, misuse of
 jurisdiction and as such liable to be modified for
the amount of maintenance from Rs. 1,000/- to
Rs. 10,000/- and as such maintenance allowance
may very graciously be enhanced to the tune of
Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand rupees).

Any other writ, order, direction or relief

which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may please
be extended in the favour of petitioners to meet
the ends of justice.

Humble Petitioners,

Dated: ___________

Through: -
Syed Muhammad Afaq Shah,
Advocate High Court,
93-District Courts, Multan.

CERTIFICATE: -
Certified as per instructions of the client,
that this is the first petition on the subject
matter. No such petition has earlier been
filed before this Hon’ble Court.
Advocate