Frivolous Objection in Dower Case with Penalty on False Claimant – 2024 CLC 2110
درج ذیل فیصلہ پشاور ہائی کورٹ کا ہے جو زوجہ کے حق مہر (گھر) کی بازیابی سے متعلق ایک اہم قانونی اصول کی وضاحت کرتا ہے:
مقدمہ: 2024 CLC 2110
عدالت: پشاور ہائی کورٹ
فریقین:
- اپیل کنندہ: نصیر احمد
- مخالف فریق: مسماة سمیرا رحمان
قانونی نکات:
سیکشن 12 – آرڈیننس 1961: نفاذِ فرمانِ عدالتی، اعتراضات، جھوٹے و بے بنیاد دعوےخلاصہ:
زوجہ نے حق مہر (گھر) کی بازیابی کے لیے دعویٰ دائر کیا جو اُس کے حق میں ڈگری ہو گیا۔ جب نفاذ کی کارروائی شروع ہوئی تو ایک تیسرے فریق (شوہر کا بہنوئی) نے دعویٰ کیا کہ وہ گھر کا مالک ہے اور اٹیچمنٹ نوٹس کو چیلنج کیا، مگر اس کا اعتراض عدالت نے مسترد کر دیا۔ بعد ازاں اپیل کورٹ اور پھر ہائی کورٹ نے بھی انہی فیصلوں کو برقرار رکھا۔عدالت نے تفصیلاً واضح کیا کہ:
- شوہر نے جو گھر بطور حق مہر دینے کا دعویٰ کیا تھا، اس کی عملی حیثیت موجود نہ تھی۔
- لہٰذا متبادل کے طور پر موجودہ گھر کی اٹیچمنٹ کا حکم جاری ہوا۔
- اعتراض کنندہ اور شوہر نے ملی بھگت سے حق مہر سے محرومی کی کوشش کی، اور اعتراض کنندہ نے دعویٰ کیا کہ اس نے 2006 میں یہ گھر خریدا تھا، حالانکہ انتقال 2013 میں ہوا، جو بذاتِ خود مشکوک تھا۔
- مقدمہ 2011 میں دائر ہوا اور شوہر نے ہر جگہ اسی گھر کا پتہ ظاہر کیا، جو اعتراض کنندہ کے موقف کی نفی کرتا ہے۔
- عدالت نے یہ بھی واضح کیا کہ جھوٹے اور بدنیتی پر مبنی مقدمات عدالت کے وقت کا ضیاع ہیں اور معصوم فریقین کے ساتھ زیادتی کے مترادف ہیں۔
نتیجہ:
اعتراض کنندہ کی نظرثانی درخواست ناقابل سماعت قرار دے کر خارج کر دی گئی اور اُسے اخراجات بھی ادا کرنے کا حکم دیا گیا۔اگر آپ اس فیصلے کو اردو میں عدالتی حوالہ یا نوٹ کی شکل میں درکار کریں یا اس پر مزید قانونی نکات یا تبصرہ چاہتے ہوں تو ضرور بتائیں۔
Must read judgement
Citation Name : 2024 CLC 2110 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Side Appellant : NASEER AHMAD
Side Opponent : Mst. SUMAIRA REHMAN
S.12---Enforcement of decree---Objection, raising of---False and frivolous litigation---Scope and effect---Wife filed a suit for recovery of dower (house) which was decreed in her favour and she moved for its execution ---Objection was raised , on issuing of attachment notice, by petitioner (other than husband/judgment-debtor) claiming ownership of house-in-question, which objection petition was dismissed---Objection petitioner challenged order passed by the Executing /Family Court , however, the impugned findings were maintained by the Appellate Court---Stance/objection of the petitioner was that the house-in-question was originally in the ownership of respondent (husband / defendant / judgment-debtor), which was purchased from him by the petitioner in the year 2006, however, the mutation attested was on 26.09.2013, whereas the attachment notice was issued after about two months of said mutation (on 19.11.2013), therefore, the said notice was illegal---Validity---Record showed that the marriage between respondents was solemnized on 14.04.2007---During the execution proceedings, it transpired that the house-in-question given to respondent / wife as dower by respondent/husband had no existence at all---Therefore, the Executing Court issued the order of attachment of the house-in-question as an alternative---But, in order to deprive respondent (wife / decree-holder) of the fruits of the decree passed in her favour, the petitioner in collusion with respondent / husband claimed the same in his ownership, which clearly showed that a deliberate attempt had been made by the petitioner and respondent / husband to deprive the respondent / wife from the benefits of the decree granted in her favour---Moreso, it was not appealable to a prudent mind that the house-in-question was purchased by the petitioner in the year 2005 but, despite that he did not transfer the same till the year 2013, which was indeed beyond comprehension---Besides, the alleged stance also could not be proved by the petitioner through cogent, reliable and confidence-inspiring evidence---Matter between the parties was finally decided by the High Court through its judgment date 11.09.2013, whereas the alleged mutation was shown attested in favour of the petitioner on 26.09.2013 after the decision of the Supreme Court, which certainly spoke volumes qua the conduct of the petitioner and respondent / husband---Another pronounced aspect of the case was that right from the date of institution of the suit of the respondent (wife / plaintiff) i.e. 19.01.2011 till the final decision of the case by the High Court on 11.09.2013, the address of the respondent (husband) had been mentioned as that of the house-in-question---So much so that respondent / husband on the affidavit in his constitutional petition had mentioned the same address, which further belied the stance of the petitioner regarding the purchase of the house-in-question in the year 2006---It was obvious from the record that when respondent/husband failed in all his efforts to deprive respondent/wife of her dower, then, he disappeared himself and the petitioner who was his brother-in-law came forward and filed instant frivolous objection petition to create further hurdles for respondent / wife in getting benefits of the decree passed in her favour way back in the year 2011---It is certainly high time to deal with false and frivolous litigation with an iron hand as on one hand it is dragging innocent persons into the courts and on another hand, it is wasting precious time of the Courts---Indeed, Courts of law are guardians of the rights and interests of the common man and are under the bounden duty and obligation to protect the same at any cost---Revision petition, filed by objection petitioner, was dismissed with costs to be paid to respondent (decree-holder)