MASHHOOR ULLAH KHAN Vs. PARVEEN ALIAS PARIVIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the appeal preferred by the defendant husband Mashhoor Ullah Khan against the trial Court's judgment and decree whereby the claim of the plaintiff-wife' Mst. Parveen alias Pariviya for realising the specified prompt dower (Mahr) of Rs. 7,100.00 and for return of the particular articles given to her by her father at the time of marriage or the price thereof to the extent of Rs. 1,421.00 was decreed against him.

(2.) Parties, who are Sunni Muslims, were married on 5-5-1975 and the amount of Rs. 7,100.00 was settled as the specified prompt dower. The respondent-wife had lived with her husband for or about five months and had come back to her parental home at Sehore on 16-10-1975. The respondent-wife's father at the relevant time was the practicing Lawyer at Sehore. The case of the plaintiff- respondent was that her husband viz. the appellant-defendant had not paid her the settled prompt dower any time even after the notice for demand for the same and as such, she was entitled to recovery of the same. It was further alleged that her father had given her, as presents, several valuable articles as detailed in the list Ex. P-4 on the date of marriage and the appellant-defendant had acknowledged the receipt of these articles in the said list vide his endorsement thereon. The appellant-defendant was alleged to have taken away all these valuable articles alongwith his wife after the Bida on the date of marriage itself. According to the plaintiff, she had to come to her parental house without all these valuables which were retained by the husband and other members of his family. The plaintiff, hence, also claimed the return of these articles or the value thereof.

(3.) The defendant-appellant refuted the wife's claim in toto. It was contended by him that the prompt dower debt as settled was paid by him to the wife just four days after the marriage i. e. on 9-5-19 75, and as such there was no debt due on this account. As regards the valuable articles given by the wife's father to his wife at the time of their marriage, it was contended that, as a matter of fact, no articles whatsoever had been given by the father. The father, in order to maintain his prestige in the community and the society, had got the fictitious list prepared so that, on that basis, he could publicise his prestige and social status to the world outside. It was on this understanding that the appellant-defendant had signed the said list Ex .P.4 without actually getting anything whatsoever. It was equally contended in this regard that the claim for return of these article, or their value could only be laid by the wife's father, not by the wife, and as such, in the absence of wife's father as the necessary party to the suit, claim so laid was not maintainable.