Wife’s Rights of Dower, Maintenance, and Custody – 2026 CLC 92.
 |
| 2026 clc 92 |
بلوچستان ہائی کورٹ: بیوی کے حق مہر، نان و نفقہ اور بچوں کی تحویل بحال
تعارف
درخواست گزار زلیخہ نے فیملی کورٹ میں درج ذیل دعوے کیے:
ٹرائل کورٹ کا فیصلہ
اپیلیٹ کورٹ کا فیصلہ
ہائی کورٹ کے اہم نکات
حتمی فیصلہ
قانونی اہمیت
Must read Judgement.
2026 C L. C 92
[Balochistan]
Before Rozi Khan Barrech and Shoukat Alt Rakhshant, ]]
ZULEKHA --Petitioner
Versus
MUHAMMAD NABI and another -Respondents
Civil Petition No. 1029 of 2024, decided on 23rd April, 2025.
(a) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)---
S.5, Sched. Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890), S. 25-Suit for past and future maintenance of minors, recovery of dower amount and house rent---Counter guardianship application filed by the husband---Right of dower-Enforceability-Trial Court through consolidated judgment decreed the suit of the wife excluding the relief of house rent and dismissed guardianship application, but the Appellate Court accepted the appeal of the husband and set aside the decree passed in favour of the wife-Validity-Appellate Court while adjudicating upon the matter pertaining to dowry article and maintenance had not only misconceived the law, but had also made a blanket observation without referring to a particular statement of a witness, thus, the Appellate Court had not appreciated and analyzed the evidence of the petitioner in its true prospective, thus, the reasons drawn by the Appellate Court for serting aside the decree for recovery of dower amount and maintenance was contrary to law and sheer result of misreading of evidence-Dower amount cannot be waived of under any circumstances as it is an indefeasible right of the spouse and she enjoys exclusive and absolute right over her dower, which cannot be relinquished at any cost-Judgment and decree of the appellate court was set aside and that of the Trial Court was restored-Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.
Mst. Haseena Bibi v. Abdul Haleem PLD 2024 SC 291 rel.
(b) Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)---
Ss. 17(3) & 25--Custody of minors---Welfare of minor-Paramount consideration---Non-consideration of factor of intelligent preference by minors-Effect-Pea of inability of the mother to afford the expenses of children-Legality-It is primary duty of the father to bear the expenses of the children and merely the inability of the mother to afford the expenses of their children does not disqualify her from retaining the custody of the minor(s)---If the minor is old enough to form an intelligent preference, the court may consider that preference as well, bu but right reference had not been given the children preference as well, but such right of preference to
Mst. Razia Bibi v. Riaz Ahmad 2004 SCMR 821 and Raja Muhammad Owais v. Mst. Nazia Jabeen 2022 5CMR 2123 rel.
Rizwan Somro for Petitioner.
Shah Wali for Respondent No. 1.
Arbab Nasruminallah, Additional Advocate General for Respondent No. 2.