Lawkidunya Banner

Recovery of Dowry Articles 2007 PLD 38 Case Laws

Recovery of Dowry Articles 2007 PLD 38 Case Laws

Recovery of Dowry Articles 2007 PLD 38 Case Laws, Section 5 & Sched.—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.120—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199—Constitutional petition—Suit for recovery of dowry articles —Limitation—Jurisdiction of Family Court—Respondent within three years of death of her husband filed suit in Family Court for recovery of dowry articles —Petitioner, father of deceased husband of respondent filed application seeking dismissal/rejection of suit filed by respondent being barred by time and for want of jurisdiction—Said application was dismissed and suit filed by respondent having been decreed by the Family Court, petitioner had filed constitutional petition against judgment of Family Court—Validity—Where no period of limitation was prescribed in filing suit for recovery of dowry articles ; provisions of Art.120, Limitation Act, 1908, providing six years period for filing suit in that respect, would be applicable, but when claim was for a specific movable property or for compensation for wrongful taking, period of limitation was three years from the day, when demand for return of articles was refused; and possession over said articles became unlawful—Suit filed by respondent within three years, was not barred by time—Before amendment in West Pakistan Family Court Act, 1964 suits for recovery of dowry articles , no doubt were to be instituted in civil court, but after amendment in the Act vide Family Courts (Amendment) Act (VII of 1997), such cases either pending or instituted were made exclusively triable by Family Court—Suit, in circumstances, was rightly filed by respondent before Family Court, which was competent forum for recovery of dowry articles —Suit filed by respondent in circumstances fell within exclusive jurisdiction of Family Court—Family Court on proper interpretation of law, had rightly decided to proceed with the case and rejected application of petitioner—Petitioner having failed to make out a case for interference of High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, constitutional petition was dismissed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *