Legal Drafting-I

FAMILY SUIT

Teacher:

Mr. Aamir Azad Khan

Submitted by:

Habibullah (01-177202-010)
and Group Members

Semester Fall-2023
Bahria School of Law: LL.B.-7(A)
Bahria University Islamabad Campus
 GROUP MEMBERS

Sr. No. Name Enrollment No.

1. Habib Ullah 01-177202-010

2. Hassan Sardar 01-177202-017

3. Abdullah Malik 01-177202-025

4. Farwa Sheikh 01-177202-007

5. Muhammad Mudassir 01-177202-031

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
PLAINT .................................................................................................................................... 4

WRITTEN STATEMENT ....................................................................................................... 5

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS ...................................................................................................... 5

ON FACTS................................................................................................................................ 5

PRAYER ................................................................................................................................... 5

ISSUES FRAMED ................................................................................................................... 6

EVIDENCE .............................................................................................................................. 6

PW-1: STATEMENT ON OATH OF MEHREEN KANWAL (PLAINTIFF NO. 1) ................................. 6

STATEMENT ON OATH OF MEHREEN KANWAL (PLAINTIFF NO. 1) ON ADDITIONAL ISSUES ...... 6

CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE PW-1 MEHREEN KANWAL ........................................................ 7

PW-2: STATEMENT ON OATH OF M. ASIF IQBAL (BROTHER OF PLAINTIFF NO. 1) .................... 7

CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE PW-2, M. ASIF IQBAL .............................................................. 7

JUDGEMENT .......................................................................................................................... 7

I. WHETHER PLAINTIFF HAS GOT CAUSE OF ACTION? [ONUS TO PROVE ON PLAINTIFF] ....... 8

II. WHETHER PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO THE MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCE IF YES AT WHAT

RATE AND FOR WHICH PERIOD? [ONUS TO PROVE ON PLAINTIFF] ............................................ 8

III. WHETHER PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO THE RECOVERY OF DOWERY ARTICLES ALONG

WITH GOLD AS PRAYED FOR? [ONUS TO PROVE ON PLAINTIFF] ................................................ 9

DECREE ................................................................................................................................. 10

REASONING BEHIND THE COURT’S ORDER ............................................................. 10

ISSUE NO. 1 ............................................................................................................................ 10

ISSUE NO. 2 ............................................................................................................................ 11

ISSUE NO. 3 ............................................................................................................................ 12

3
 MST. MEHREEN KANWAL ETC. VS MUHAMMAD AFZAL

PLAINT
The plaintiff filed a suit in the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Family Judge, West Islamabad,
seeking recovery of maintenance, dower, dowry articles, and gold ornaments. There are three
plaintiffs in this case: plaintiff no. 1 and two minor children, plaintiff no. 2 and plaintiff no. 3,
who initiated the suit along with their mother (plaintiff no. 1).

The plaintiff married the defendant on 11-02-2016, following all Muslim ceremonies, with a
dower set at Rs. 7 Lac, which remains unpaid to date. At the time of marriage, the defendant
gifted the plaintiff 7 tolas of gold, which were later snatched. The couple had two children from
this marriage. Differences between the couple arose, but the plaintiff endured the torments for
the sake of her children.

The defendant deserted the plaintiff after brutally beating her on 9-1-2016. Since then, the
defendant has not provided any maintenance for the plaintiff or the minor children, despite the
monthly entitlement of Rs. 25,000 per child. The plaintiff, entitled to receive maintenance from
January 2016, was ousted by the defendant, who ignored repeated requests through family
members. The defendant, a businessman in a good financial position, is capable of providing
maintenance.

The dowry articles are in the defendant’s house, and the plaintiff seeks to recover them (a list
of dowry articles is attached). The plaintiff attempted to resolve the issue without success. The
cause of action accrued in January 2016 and recently when the defendant refused to provide
maintenance, leading to the filing of this suit.

Both parties reside within the territorial jurisdiction of this court, and the court is deemed
suitable to try this case. The appropriate fee is affixed to the plaint. The plaintiff demands:

1. Maintenance for herself and her children from January 2016 until they reach majority.

2. Dowry articles along with 7 tolas of gold ornaments.

3. Dower of Rs. 7 lacs.

4
 WRITTEN STATEMENT
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS

In preliminary objections the defendant encircles claims of manipulated documents, familial

opposition, and an alleged breach of trust through the stamp paper security measure, suggesting
a complex web of circumstances leading to the current suit.

The defendant claims that the plaintiff has concealed important facts and tried to deceive the
court and gain sympathy. The defendant says that entries in the Nikah Nama were manipulated
without his knowledge, with pages left blank initially and later filled in without his consent.
He emphasizes that due to a smooth relationship between him and the plaintiff, he never
questioned the integrity of the Nikah Nama. He also says that his family initially opposed the
marriage, and as a security, the plaintiff's brothers obtained a signed and thumb-marked stamp
paper from him. The defendant also claims that the affidavit attached to the case contains details
not known to him and is biased in favor of the plaintiff.

ON FACTS

The defendant denies several claims made in the Plaint. He mentions that permission was not
sought to file the suit on behalf of the minor plaintiffs. He also disputes the amount of dower,
stating it was not fixed at Rs. 7,00,000, and disputes the events surrounding the marriage and
the alleged beating. He also asserts that the plaintiff is a disobedient wife and that she has
misappropriated some gold ornaments. The Defendant also denies him being a businessman
and claims he is a small merchant. The defendant also addresses issues related to dowry articles
and disputes regarding living arrangements. He states that financial constraints are the reason
he is not living in Islamabad. The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff’s refusal to live with him
is the reason for denying maintenance. The defendant acknowledges the legal validity of
paragraphs 10 and 11.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, respectful prayed that the Honourable Court instructs the Plaintiff to collect her
dowry articles, currently in possession of the Defendant. The Defendant is willing to provide
financial support for the minors. The Plaintiff should start living with the defendant and the
minors in Multan and start performing her conjugal obligations. That the court should fix
visitation rights for the minors with the Defendant. Any other relief deemed suitable and proper
by the Court is also sought by the defendant.

5
 ISSUES FRAMED
1. Whether plaintiff has got cause of action? i.e., does the Plaintiff has the legal grounds
or basis to bring a Lawsuit.

2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the maintenance allowance, if yes, at what rate and for
which period? This question pertains to a legal inquiry about whether the plaintiff is
eligible for maintenance, and if so, the rate and duration of that maintenance.

3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of dowery articles along with gold as prayed
for? This question pertains to a legal inquiry about whether the plaintiff is entitled to
recover the dowry articles along with the gold, currently in possession of the defendant.

4. Relief. This refers to the relief that is granted by the court based on the legal arguments
presented, the applicable laws and facts of the case.

EVIDENCE

PW-1: STATEMENT ON OATH OF MEHREEN KANWAL (PLAINTIFF NO. 1)

In the statement, the plaintiff confirmed her marriage with the defendant. The prompt dower
was Rs. 20,000, and the deferred dower was Rs. 700,000, both of which remain unpaid.
According to the stamp papers, I was supposed to be given gold worth 7 Tolas, and according
to Nikah Nama, I was to be given gold worth 5 Tolas at the time of the marriage. However,
neither has been provided. As per the Nikah Nama, I was also supposed to receive Rs. 5,000
per month, which has also not been given.

Sometime after the marriage, the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant started to
worsen due to petty matters. The defendant, along with his brother, beat me and deserted me
on 9.1.2016. Furthermore, the defendant did not fulfill the basic needs of the children.

STATEMENT ON OATH OF MEHREEN KANWAL (PLAINTIFF NO. 1) ON ADDITIONAL ISSUES

This statement involves the plaintiff's willingness to re-establish her relationship with the
defendant if he is willing to keep her in Islamabad. No maintenance was paid to the plaintiff
during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, the statement addresses the poor condition of
the dowry articles.

6
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE PW-1 MEHREEN KANWAL

The cross-examination involves questions related to the prior marriage relations between the
plaintiff's and defendant's families, the defendant's living situation before and since the
marriage, the presence of defendant's family members at the time of the marriage, the couple's
living arrangements post-marriage, the identity of the individual who assaulted the plaintiff,
the person who contacted the police, the details mentioned in the Nikah Nama, the plaintiff's
marital status before marrying the defendant, the status of the children, any prior marriages of
the plaintiff, the status of the plaintiff's family members, the defendant's business ventures, the
plaintiff's relationship with the witnesses, the contents of the dowry articles, the date of the
legal notice sent to the defendant, the contents of the legal notice, and whether a jirga was
convened, among other things.

PW-2: STATEMENT ON OATH OF M. ASIF IQBAL (BROTHER OF PLAINTIFF NO. 1)

He reiterated the same points as those mentioned in the plaint and in the statement of plaintiff
no. 1.

CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE PW-2, M. ASIF IQBAL

The cross-examination involves questions regarding Asif Iqbal's role as an eyewitness to the
relationship between plaintiff no. 1 and the defendant, whether a jirga was convened for
reconciliation between the parties, the timing of the purchase of dowry articles, the purchaser
of the dowry articles, and the individual responsible for purchasing the gold ornaments, among
other details.

JUDGEMENT
Ms Mehreen (plaintiff no 1) filled suit for recovery of maintenance, dower and dowery articles
(along with gold ornaments) . According to plaint the parties (plaintiff and defendant) enter
into a contract of marriage on 11.02.2012 according to Shariah (Muslim rites) and the dower
(deferred) amount was fixed Rs. 700000 which was still unpaid. The defendant also gave 7 tola
gold as a gift to the plaintiff on time of marriage. Which was later snatched by defandant. The
plaintiff and defendant were blessed with two children one son (Muhammad Ahmed Afzal and
one daughter aiman Afzal). After the marriage the conflicts start between parties but the
plaintiff tries his best to continue his marital life for the sake of her children and family. But in
January 2016 the plaintiff was kicked out with an empty hand by a defendant from his house.
And since no maintenance will be given to the plaintiff. The defendant is a financially strong

7
person and owner of two shops and also having land from that defendant earned a handsome
amount of money so the defendant is able to pay maintenance to the plaintiff. No 1 and plaintiff
no 2. 3 hence this suit for recovery of maintenance allwonace for plaintiff no 1 from January
2016 to onward at the rate of 25000 per month and same for plaintiff no 2, 3 at same rate till
their legal entitlement. And for decree of recovery of dowry articles dower and seven tola gold.
After institutions of suit notice were given to defandant.The defendant submitted his written
statement on 21.06.2018 and decided to contest the case. The pre trail reconciliation proceeding
held on 21. 06.2018 but did not succeed. So interim maintenance for plaintiff no 2 3 fixed at a
rate of 4000 per month for each minor child. Issues were framed from the pleadings of the
parties.The parties were required to present supporting and counter evidence. So parties
produced his evidence in the form of oral and documentary evidence

On 06. 09 2018 the following issues were framed by Court from the pleadings of the parties.
The decision thereupon, along with the issues has been mentioned below:

I. WHETHER PLAINTIFF HAS GOT CAUSE OF ACTION? [ONUS TO PROVE ON PLAINTIFF]

The marriage between parties is an admitted fact. So plaintiff has got cause of action for
instituting suit regarding Claim for recovery of maintenance allowance, recovery of dower ,
recovery of dowery articles along with gold ornaments. So plaintiff has the right to institute the
suit. So plaintiff has the right to Claim but the Eligibility for that claim will be decided in light
of evidence.

II. WHETHER PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO THE MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCE IF YES AT

WHAT RATE AND FOR WHICH PERIOD? [ONUS TO PROVE ON PLAINTIFF]

The plaintiff institute is suitable for recovery of maintenance allowance for her and her minor
children plaintiff no 2 and 3. So according to plaintiff cause of action arises when plaintiff was
outed by defendant from his house

So when the plaintiff is cross examined by defandant learned counsel. One thing cleared
during cross examination that she was kicked out of the house. It means plaintiff not lived with
defendant hence plaintiff is entitled for maintenance

Contact for the entitlement of maintaining allowance always conditional with the obedience of
wife (plaintiff) to his husband.

8
From the following statement which was given by plaintiff during cross examination it is clear
that the plaintiff is obedient to her husband (defendant) and hence she (plaintiff) is entitled to
maintenance:

• I am ready to live with the defendant

• I am also ready to live in Multan but first the defendant has paid previous maintenance
and kept me (plaintiff with respect).

Additionally, the rate of maintenance allowance for platiff will always be fixed according to
the financial condition of defandant and according to the needs of the plaintiff

The plaintiff claims that defandant has two shops of garments at different places and is earning
handsome amounts, so is able to pay maintenance. And in nikkah nama the defendant also
bound himself to pay Rs. 5,000 to platiff no. 1. So After keeping in mind the financial condition
of defandant the court fixed Rs. 5,000 as maintenance allowance for the plaintiff no 1 from
date 09.01.2016 till subsistence of marriage. The same amount each fixed for minors as
maintenance allowance from the date of birth till their legal entitlement. And from the date of
judgement the annual 10% also increased in maintenance allowance

III. WHETHER PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO THE RECOVERY OF DOWERY ARTICLES ALONG

WITH GOLD AS PRAYED FOR? [ONUS TO PROVE ON PLAINTIFF]

Claim for recovery of dowry articles

The plaintiff also claims for recovery of dowery articles in suit. After examining the evidence
the court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of dowry articles
because it is the ordinary articles which usually parents give to their daughter. So decree for
recovery of dowery article passed in favour of plaintiff and directed the defandant to give
back the recovery article to plaintiff and also directed the plaintiff that she can’t asked for
branded articles recovery because marriage held in 2014 and both defandant and platiff lived
together for a long time so the condition of article will also be changed so defandant returned
the dowery article in condition ( in which presently there are )

And if the defendant failed to deliver any of them article decree in favour of the plaintiff then
he would be bound to make payment of 60 % of the price claimed

Claim for dower

9
The claim of plaintiff for the dower amount was dismissed. Because once the dower is not
paid on time nikkah or rukhsati or has not been prescribed as promot is considered as a defer
dower. And the deferred dower according to law is payable only in two conditions to plaintiff
when her husband defendant died or in condition when marriage has been dissolved. But in
the instant case the defendant did not die and marriage between parties was still intact . So two
conditions for deferred dower not fulfilled in the present case So therefore plaintiff is not
entitled for dower ( for amount which is mentioned in iqrar nama or in nikkah nama

Claim for recovery of gold ornaments

For the recovery of seven tola gold (in support of this claim the plaintiff presents the recipient
of the purchase of jewellery articles. In that the name of the purchaser is not mentioned. And
two recipients of the 2013 year date which is after the date of rukhsati means the claim for
recovery of golden ornament by platiff is not valid . In the light of above circumstances the
claim by plaintiff for recovery of golden article does not decree in favour of platiff.

DECREE
This suit came on 27 Feb 2019 before senior civil judge Qudratulallah. Mrs Mehreen Kanwal
is the plaintiff along with his learned counsel Naeem Ali gujjar advocate and Muhammad Afzal
is defendant along with his learned counsel Inam Mughal advocate. The suit of plaintiff is
partially decree. The decree for maintenance allowance passed in favour of plaintiff. Now
plaintiff is entitled for maintenance at a rate of 5000 per month from 09.01.2016 till the
subsistence of her marriage. Decree for recovery of dowry articles also passed in favour of
plaintiff. Now the defendant returned the dowry articles ( in present conditions they are ) to
the plaintiff. If unable failed to return the dowry articles then paid 60 % of the claim article.
The decree of gold ornament dismissed and decree for dower amount also dismissed.

REASONING BEHIND THE COURT’S ORDER

ISSUE NO. 1

The primary matter under consideration in this family suit revolves around the determination
of whether the plaintiff has a legitimate cause of action. The central components of the cause
of action include the maintenance of the plaintiff and her children, as well as the retrieval of
her dower and dowry articles. It is noteworthy that the acknowledgment of the marriage
between the parties is undisputed, forming the foundation for the plaintiff's claim.

10
The court, after a careful examination of the available evidence and arguments presented, has
reached a conclusive decision on Issue No. 1. The judge has affirmed that the plaintiff does
indeed possess a cause of action based on the following considerations:

• Acknowledged Marriage: The court acknowledges that the marriage between the
parties is an established and accepted fact. This acknowledgment forms the
fundamental basis for the plaintiff's right to initiate legal proceedings seeking
maintenance and recovery of her dower and dowry articles.

• Entitlement and right to Sue: While the marriage is acknowledged, the judge aptly
recognizes that the plaintiff's entitlement to maintenance and recovery of dower and
dowry articles is a distinct matter that necessitates a thorough examination of the
evidence presented during the proceedings. The court emphasizes that the
determination of the plaintiff's entitlement is contingent upon the evidence presented
and is not automatically assumed based solely on the acknowledgment of the marriage.

Considering the undisputed acknowledgment of the marriage between the parties, the court has
conclusively determined that the plaintiff possesses a cause of action. However, it is crucial to
note that the extent of the plaintiff's entitlement to maintenance and the recovery of her dower
and dowry articles will be contingent upon the evidence presented during the proceedings. This
decision sets the stage for a more detailed examination of the evidence and relevant legal
considerations in subsequent proceedings related to the plaintiff's claims.

ISSUE NO. 2

The focal point of Issue No. 2 in the family suit was the determination of the plaintiff's
entitlement to a maintenance allowance, specifying the rate and duration. The burden of proof
rested on the plaintiff, who sought maintenance for herself and her minor children from January
9, 2016, at the rate of Rs. 25,000 per month each. The court meticulously examined the
evidence, including the plaintiff's testimony and cross-examination, to arrive at a judicious
decision.

• Dates of Desertion: The plaintiff asserted that she was deserted from her matrimonial
home on January 9, 2016. This claim was reiterated consistently by the plaintiff and her
brother during their respective testimonies. The court took note of the plaintiff's

11
 steadfastness in affirming the material aspects of her statement despite an extensive
cross-examination.

• Defendant's Admission: The defendant's admission that the plaintiff was deserted on
January 9, 2016, was crucial in establishing the timeline of events. The court considered
this admission as a key element in determining the plaintiff's entitlement to
maintenance.

• Obedience to Husband: The judge emphasized that the plaintiff's entitlement to

maintenance is conditional upon her obedience to her husband. The plaintiff's
statements during cross-examination, expressing her willingness to live with the
defendant under certain conditions, were considered in evaluating her entitlement to
maintenance.

• Financial Resources of the Defendant: The court delved into the financial standing
of the defendant, considering the plaintiff's claim that the defendant operates garments
shops at two different locations. Additionally, the revelation that the defendant has a
shop in Super Market was a crucial factor in assessing his financial capability.

• Nikahnama and Iqrarnama: The court considered the terms of the Nikahnama (Ex.
P3) and Iqrarnama (Ex. P6), where the defendant committed to making monthly
payments to the plaintiff. While the initial commitment was Rs. 5,000 per month, the
subsequent Iqrarnama increased the amount to Rs. 10,000 per month.

Based on a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence and legal considerations, the court
determined that the plaintiff is entitled to a maintenance allowance of Rs. 5,000 per month from
January 9, 2016, until the subsistence of the marriage. The same amount was fixed as the
maintenance allowance for the minor children, with a 10% annual increase from the date of
judgment. The court also specified that the amount paid by the defendant as interim
maintenance would be deducted from the outstanding arrears. This detailed analysis forms the
basis for the court's decision on Issue No. 2 in the family suit.

ISSUE NO. 3

Issue No. 3 in the family suit addressed the plaintiff's entitlement to the recovery of dowry
articles and gold. The court carefully evaluated the evidence presented by the plaintiff to
determine the validity of her claims. The judgment, as outlined below, provides a detailed
analysis of the court's decision on this matter.

12
 • Dower Amount: The court examined the Nikahnama (Ex. P3) and the Iqrarnama (Ex.
P6) to ascertain the agreed-upon dower amount. The Nikahnama specified a prompt
dower of Rs.20,000, while the Iqrarnama mentioned a larger sum of Rs.7,00,000 along
with seven tolas of gold. The court emphasized the significance of the Nikahnama as
the most authentic document for dower fixation.

• Deferred Dower: The court clarified that any dower not paid at the time of nikah or
rukhsati, or not prescribed as prompt, is considered deferred dower. Such deferred
dower is payable only upon the dissolution of marriage or the death of the husband. In
this case, since the marriage is still intact, the plaintiff is entitled only to the prompt
dower of Rs.20,000. The rule regarding the deferred dower was also argued by Mr.
Muhammad Inam Mughal who was learned counsel for the defendant where he relied
on case laws such as Sadia Usman and Others versus Muhammad Usman Iqbal
Jadoon and other (2009 SCMR 1458) and Adam vs. Mst. Abida and two others (PLD
2015 Balochistan 26). The former case law is significant when it comes to laying down
the rule regarding deferred dower and has been cited in cases of similar nature such as
Tehreem Aamir Vs. The Additional District Judge-III, (West) Islamabad etc. It was
observed in the Sadia Usman case that dower is gift given by bridegroom to bride and
the Holy Quran is silent on two types of dowers i.e., prompt, and deferred dower where
part of dower is described as ‘Mu’wajjal i.e., deferred but not time limit is fixed for its
payment, the time of such payment is either death or divorce.1

• Dowry Articles: The plaintiff claimed dowry articles listed in Ex. P14, including
jewelry items. The court examined purchase receipts (Ex. P7 to Ex. P23) presented as
evidence. Receipts Ex. P12, Ex. P13, Ex. P21, and Ex. P23 were excluded due to lack
of purchaser details or being dated after the rukhsati. The remaining ordinary dowry
articles, supported by both verbal and documentary evidence, were decreed in favor of
the plaintiff.

• Condition of Articles: Considering that the parties lived together until 2016, the court
acknowledged that household articles would not be in a brand-new condition. The
defendant was obligated to deliver the articles in their current state. However, if any

1
Tehreem Aamir vs. The Additional District Judge-III, (West) Islamabad etc., Case No. W.P. No.945-2018.

13
 article were not delivered, the defendant would be liable to pay 60% of its claimed
price.

The court concluded that the plaintiff is entitled to the prompt dower amount of Rs.20,000. The
recovery of dowry articles listed in Ex. P14, except those mentioned in receipts Ex. P12, Ex.
P13, Ex. P21, and Ex. P23, was decreed in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant must deliver
the articles in their current condition, and if any article is not provided, he is obligated to pay
60% of the claimed price. This comprehensive analysis forms the basis for the court's decision
on Issue No. 3 in the family suit.

14