Saddam Hussain Vs Mst. Bibi Habiba

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT,

BANNU BENCH

lJud ioial I)cparlment)

W.P No.606-

Saddam Hussain Vs Mst. Bibi Habiba

.IUDG E,NT

I)atc of hoaring 27.11.2023

Ior pctitioncr(s): Mr. Yasir Rauf W azir Advocate.

Iior rcspondcnt(s) Mr. Asif Advocate.

Dr. Khurshid lqhal, J.-

1.Ily means of this writ petition, under Article 199 of the Constitution, the petitioner Saddam I-Iussain has qucstioncd thc validity of judgmcnt and decrcc datcd 05.06.2023 of thc lcarned appcllatc courl on dowry articles(issue #5 in the family suit), and prayed for restoration of the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2023 of the learncd trial court/liamily Court to that cxtcnt.

2, Pithily stated facts of thc case are that respondent/plaintiff brought a suit for 03 tola gold and a rcsidential room, as clower; Its. 15,000/- per month sincc August 2021, as past and future maintenance; certain house hold a(icles mentioned in a list, as dowry, and dissolution of marriagc. Ir..ikcth of the parlies was solemnizcd on 26.12.2019 in lieu of the above referred dower. '['hc rclations between the couple remained amicablc aftcr rukhsati. I lowevcr, as thc rcspondcnt

n

complaincd in her plaint, the conduct of the petitioncr/dcfcndant turncd harsh towards her what she claimccl at thc bchcst of his sister. Such conduct, shc addcd, compelled hcr to go to the house of her parents, whcrc shc, unfortunatcly, gave birth to a stillborn baby. 'l'he worst that happcncd was that shc was divorccd via a phonc call. Shc asserted that dowcr and maintcnancc wcrc not paid to her. She filed the suit. Thc petitioner contcstcd the suit. I Ie submitted his written statcmcnt. Neccssary issues wcre framed. Evidence of the partics was recordcd. After hearing arguments, the learned trial court, vidc judgmcnt dated 28.03 .2023, passcd a decrce in favour of rcspondcnt/wifc for the dowcr as praycd for; maintcnance @, I{s.7000/- per month from 27.08.2021 and onwards with 100% annual increasc, certain articlcs- a coolcr, bedding, a cupboard o[ books, box and a charpai-as dowry, and restitution of conjugal rights. On appcal, vidc judgment datcd 05.06.2023, the lcarned appcllatc court dissolvcd thc marriagc on basis ol khula, modificd the decrec for dowry articlcs and maintcnance allowancc.

3.Lcarncd counsel for thc pctitioncr/defendant statcd that thc list ol dowry articles was not prepared at the timc ol rukhsati anrJ that no purchase receipts worc produccd. IIe also statcd that the list containcd gold ornamcnts, and that somc othcr articles werc mentioned twice in it. He rclicd on Kanizan llibi 1,2009; Lahorc I Iigh Court, Lahorc (l,l IC)lr ancl Muhammad Javed lqball20l3; LI IC)1.2

I

Mst. Kunizan tlihi t,. Allah Ditta and others,2009 YLR 22ll.ahoral. 2Muhantmatl .laved lqbal t,, ltltlitional Sessions/District Jutlge-1, [,ahore and 2 others, 20 l 3 CLC 944 ll.ahorcl.

I'agc-3-of15

,i

4.On thc other hand, lcamcd counscl for the respondcnt/plaintiff argued that it is not necessary to prcparc thc list of dowry articles at thc time of rukhsati. Ncxt, hc argucd that culturally ncithcr any rccord of thc rcceipts is kcp1, nor is it rcquircd undcrthe law. IIc dreu' support lrom the statutory exclusion of the Qctnun-e- Shcthadat Ordcr, 1984 (QSO) by virtuc of section ll of thc 1 964 lamily courts [aw. I Ie suppo(ed his argument from Shakeelq llibi l(2012; Islamabad IIigh Court (IIIC)13 ancl llozeena (2013; LIIC).4 'fhc record of thc family suit madc availablc was gone through.

5.tloth the courts bclow noticcably diffcrcd while rccording thcir respcctivc lindings on thc issuc of dowry articlcs. It is, thcrcforc, impcrativc to scrutinizc the cvidence to determinc whether the petitioner/defendant has bccn ablc to provc thc stance his counscl asscrted bclorc this cour1.

6.'l-hc petitioner/defcndant did not categorically deny thc claim of thc rcspondcnt/plaintiff regarding rcturn of thc dowry articlcs. In his writtcn statcmcnt, hc simply statcd that thc list of thc dowry articlcs is fraudulcnt and scll-madc.'l'hc rcspondcnt/plaintitf lcd hcr cvidcncc rcgarding thc dou,ry articlcs and also cxhibitcd thc list. 'l'hc pctitioncr/defendant did not substantially challengc hcr during cross-examination. All that was askcd on his bchall' was that thc rcspondcnt/plaintifl' was not in posscssion of thc receipts of the dowry articles. 'l'hc rcspondcnt/plaintiff admitted having no receipts in her tll4st.

Sl'tukeetq Bibi v. Muhomntoil Lsrar untl tilher,20 l2 MLI) 756 llslamabadl tll4st.

lktzecnushaheen v. ,4btlurtlehntan und 2 others,20 l3 Yl,l{ 842 ll,ahorcl.

posscssion, but then stated on her own that the receipts wcrc in posscssion of thc pctitioncr/dclcndant, lufthcr adding that it is not thc job ol womenfolk. 'l'he petitioncr/husband in examination-in-chief stated that the rcspclndcnt/plaintiff had not brought any dowry articlcs cxccpt a charpai, a pair of bcdding and fu(hcr that shc was givcn by her parents onc bedding, a charpai, a box and a cupboard for books. I-lowcver, ltom this pcrspcctivc, thc rcspondcnt/plaintiff was not cross cxamincd on his behalf. Similarly, while undcr cross- examination, hc stated that hc had purchascd a doublc bcd and a washing machinc. Neithcr this contcntion was put belorc thc respondcnt/plaintift in her cross- cxamination, nor did hc producc any receipt in support of his vcrsion. lntcrcstingly, his father Sycd Akhtar I Iussain Shah in his cxamination-in-chicf though supportcd thc abovc relerred contention; when subjected to cross- cxamination, he admitted having purchased 10 pairs each of clothcs and slcepcrs (chappal) and othcr housc hold articl cs for the rcspondcnt/plaintiff.

7.So lar as argumcnt that the gold ornamcnts and thc othcr articlcs mcntioned twicc, is concemed, thosc arc appcaring at serial # 17 Lo 20 of the list. Out of thesc, thc itcms at scrial # 19 and 20 arc mcntioncd as thrcc (03) tola g<>kJ and an cight (ti) yards rcsidcntial r<lotn, as dower and one (01) tola gold given to thc rcspondcnt/plaintiff by hcr father. 'l'hcse two items arc, no doubt, not parl of thc dowry articlcs. 'l-hc lcarncd appcllatc courl has rightly cxcluded these whilc rccording its findings on the issue. Ilowcvcr, thc itcms at serial # 17 and I U arc the same as itcms at scrial # 27 and 28.

a

Learncd counsel lor thc rcspondcnt/plaintiff admittcd at the bar that this is due to inadvertence. Resultantly, thc items on scrial No.27 and 28 are excluded lrom the list.

8.Advcrting to thc lcgal aspcct of thc casc, this court would first discuss thc cases on which learned counscl for thc pctitioncr/husband rclicd to prop up his argument (that thc list was not prcparcd at the timc of rukhsoti and that no record of purchasc receipts maintained). In Kanizan llibis, thc first case, thc first appcllatc court determincd that: firstly, thc list of thc dowry articlcs was preparcd at thc timc o[ {-rling o[ thc suit and not at the timc of rukhsati. Sccondly, the wifc asserted that hcr lathcr and brother had purchased thc dowry articlcs, but shc didn't cxaminc thcm as witnesscs. A close rcading of thc judgmcnt of the honourable I-FIC would transpire that thc rcspondcnt/husband produced cvidence of the fact that pursuant to a privatc patch up through a local councillor, two pcrsons of thc locality letched the dowry articlcs lrom thc housc of respondcnt/husband to thc housc of thc petitioncr/wifc. Whilc thc findings of thc first appcllate court werc not scrutinizcd, the qucstion raiscd was that r,vhat is thc lcgal status of a list ol dowry articlcs prepared at thc timc of the filing of suit and not at thc timc oI thc rukhsctti.'fhis question will be discussed shortly in light of thc casc law. In thc case of Muhqmmad Javed Iqbaf , thc lacts ancl circumstancc wcrc such that thc marriagc took placc, and nikah pcrlormcd in thc housc o[ thc respondcnt/wifc. 'I'he rcason was that the marriagc was proposcd as a mattcr of a lovc aflair to Mst. Kuni:un llibi, supra n. l.

" Muhonttntttl ,ltn:c/ 1a16r1. supra n. 2

Pagc-6-ol15

which lamily mcmbcrs of thc pctitioncr/husband werc opposed. It followcd that nonc, lrom amongst his lamily membcrs, attcndcd the marriage. Facts furthcr reveal that soon altcr thc marriage, the petitioncr/husband returned to his job in anothcr city. [n such circumstanccs, thc dowry arlicles were not shifted to thc parcntal house of thc pctitioner/husband. 'l'hc facts and circumstanccs of both thcsc cases arc substantially difl'crcnt lrom those of the onc in hand. I-lcnce, their ratios are not applicable to thc prescnt casc. I-Iowcver, thc qucstion noted from the first casc is takcn up lor discussion in the ncxt paragraph.

9.'l'hc clucstion pcrtaining to thc lcgal status o[ a list of dowry articlcs prepared at the time of the filing cf suil and not at thc time c{' the rukhsati, has grabbcd thc attcntion of thc highcr courts in ccrtain rccent, though limited, numbcr o[ cases since thc year 2000. fhc qucstion is cxtrcmely important flor two rcasons: firstly, thc cxprcss non-application of the QSO by scction 17 ot thc 1964 family courts law. Sccondly, the cultural conl"cxt ol' giving of dowry articlcs to a bridc in hcr ft- marriagc in our socicty. 'l'his court proposcs to search an appropriatc answer to the question aftcr an in-depth discussion on thc casc law with a humble vicw to contributc to thc cxisting jurisprudcncc. As rcgards, thc non-application of thc QSO, thc rclcvant cascs arc: Shakeela tlibil and Rozeeno.r ln thc formcr case, thc II'IC rcjcctcd thc stancc of thc rcspondcnt/husband that thc list ol'thc dowry arliclcs was rcquircd to bc provcd pcr thc provisions of thc QSO. In thc latter casc, in which a wi[e Mst. Shakcelu Bibi, supra n. -i.

Msl. lkreena Shoheen, supra n. 4

was the petitioner, the LI IC held the samc view, but spelt out what may be called, respectfully though, a more legalistic approach, cmphasizing care and caution whilc appraising cvidcnce in a family suit. 'l-hc peculiar aspect of this casc was that the list of thc dowry articles containcd such items as cash money of Its. Onc million, a car and other such items which are seldom givcn to a bride by her parents and are not brought by her as her own incomc. 'l'hc learncd court opincd that notwithstanding thc non-application of thc QSO, thc deposition of a wife has to bc appraised on the touchstonc of truth and consistency. l'he lcarned court maintaincd that whilc cvaluating thc list o[ thc dowry articlcs, thc custom and financial capability of parents of thc bridc should kcpt in view. In the context of thc pcculiar lacts o[ thc casc bclorc it, thc lcarncd counscl further addcd that thc I'rnancial status of thc parcnts of a bridc is not a truc indicativc of thc list o[ the dowry articlcs as:

Itlhc quantity and tho valuc of articlcs givcn, is always cxocssivc and inoompatiblc with thcir financial r:ondition. 'l'hc cxclusion ol' thc provisions ol' IQSOI only rolcasos thc lrarnily Courts ol' thc tochnicalitir:s ol' thc law of cvidcncc in ordor to cnsurc thc spccdy adjudioation o1-thc liarnily oasos and prcr:cdcncc o1'thc substantivc .iusticc to thc tcchnioalitios of larv. It docs not absolvc thc lramily Courts ol- thcir rcsponsibility to woigh, gaugo and ascortain thc vora<;ity and standard of tho cvidcncc.

10.'['hc Court lormcd the abovc quotcd opinion aftcr cxamining thc issuc in cuhural contcxt, thc next point this court has proposcd lor discussion. I]cforc moving

Pagc - tt - of 15

A.

lorward to that discussion, it deems appropriate to oxplorc thc judicial approach to thc issue in somc othcr relevant cases.

11.ln Muhammacl Jqved Iqbctl (2002; LIIC)e, it was hcld that thc list of dowry articles was cxhibited by thc respondcnt/wifc without objection from thc pctitioncr/husband, who had knowlcdgc of it from thc vcry bcginning of thc proceedings. 'l'he Court furthcr ruled that evcn if thc value of the articles specifically containcd in the list is not detcrmined by the trial court, thc list could bc cxccutcd to thc cxtcnt of such spccificd articlcs. 'l'he Court statcd in its opinion that thc QSO (and the CI'}C) has no application to family disputes. Anothcr rclcvant casc is M. Ja/J'ar (2005; LIIC),I0 in which dowry arliclcs wcrc dccrccd on thc strcngth of the solc statemcnt of thc rcspondcnt/wifc whilc rclying an on admittcd lact that rukhsati had takcn place. In a 2008 casc- Muhammad llabib-thc Supreme Court didn't disturb the finding of thc lowcr court on the ground that thc list containcd such dowry articlcs which arc ordinarily givcn to a bri<lc at thc time of rukhsati." 'l'*o othcr Supreme Court cascs, in which though leave werc refused, may be mentioncd hcrc. lllah llakhi(2004)r2 was refuscd leavc to appcal nrainly lor thc rcason that shc lailcd to statc what was mcntioncd in thc list of thc dowry articlcs which shc sought to rccovcr in hcr suit. She lailed to producc corrobclrativc cvidcncc in support of hcr stancc. On this "Muhammtrd.laved lqhal v.'l'ahiruNaheert, 200CLC I :i96 |Lahorcl. "'lt4. .ta17u, t,. /dtlitional Di.strict.luclge ant) others,2005 MLI) 1069 [.ahorcl. tt MtrhanmurJ llabib v. Mst. Sa./ia Bibi antl others,200tt SCMIt l5tl4 lSuprcmc CoLrrl of l'}akislan l.

t?Mubarak lli v. Muhantmad llamzan antl olhers,2004 SCMIT 1740 lSupromc Court ol Pakistan l.

A

casc, the LI IC in llozeena (supra) aptly commented, "thc lcavc to appcal was not rcfuscd on thc sole ground that thc list of dowry articles was not prcparcd at thc time of marriagc and was preparcd later on" (p. 846). Mirza lrshacl llaig (2005)13 was rcfuscd lcavc to appcal bccausc thc respondent/wi[c had exhibited thc list of the dowry articles, signed by her real brother and supported by hcr cousin in his statcmcnt.

12.'l'his court now turns to thc cascs in which thc cultural contcxt was examined. In M. Ja/far, the I-llC obscrvcd that if rukhsati has taken placc, "thcn nalurally articlcs of dowry arc shiftcd along with bridc" (p.l07l). ln Shakeelo Bibi, thc II IC gave a cultural touch in the following words:

Irvcn <lthcrwiso, in our socicty, it is not possiblc lor any brido/wifc to kcop thc rccord of purohasc rcccipts, prcparc thc list of dowry articlcs. and obtain signaturcs lrom bridogroorn/husband sidc. In my <lbsorvation, rnothcr start collccting, purohasc and prcscrving of articlcs for hor daughtcr, whcn shc starts growing. It is also a tradition that in-laws, of any brido/wi1-o arc oxtcndcd cxtrcmc rcspcct and il. is considcrcd an insult to proparc thc dowry list ltlr thr: purposo ol'obtaining signaturos lrorn thcrn. I am also lb(illcd, with tho ratio and wisdorl of thc Court of apox pr<lvidcd through cascs Muhammad I Iabib v. Mst. Safia and othcrs rcportcd as 200tt SCMIT l5tl4 and Mirr.a Arshad Ilaig v. AI)J roportcd as 2005 SCMIT

13.ln llozeena, Lhc LIIC rcad thc cultural aspcct in grcatcr dctail like this:

'-'/.,lir=u.tlrsahtllJuip,r'. fuklitionul l)i.rtritl .lutlge, Multan.2005 SCMIT 1740 lSuprcmc (lour( ol'l'}akistan l.

I)agc - l0 - of l5

A

tt. 'l'hc last and thc most important qucstion is rogarding tho modc and standard of proof of a Iaot in a Iarnily Court rogarding thc giving o[ thc articlcs of dowry. In I'}unjab wc arc conliontcd with two divcrsc situations. Onc. in which tho parcnts arc boundod by thc oruol custom obliging thcrn to givc articlcs of dowry to thcir daughtors bcyond thoir financial capacity. lirom thc day a girl takcs birth. hcr rnothcr rcscrvcs a box lor hcr ltlr dcpositing whatcvor thc arliclcs of dowry shc can stcalthily buy lor this prospcctivc brido. No rcocipt rcgarding thc purohasc of thr:sc articlos is proparcd <lr kcpt. 'l'his oxcrcisc on thc part of' l.hc mothor gocs on without its disclosurc to any othcr mcmbcr ol'thc I'arnily. 'l'hcsc articlcs arc purchascd by putting olf and somotimcs ruling out thc currcnt nccossitics of thc farnily mcmbcrs altogothcr. 'l'his custom look birth by thc womb ol'thc propcrticd parcnts to dcprivc thcir daughtcrs lrom thcir sharc duc and t<r roscrvc thc movablo proporty ftrr thc sons only. 'l'hcy suc<;osslully oustcd tho daughtcrs liom thcir sharing thc landod propcrty by con{ining thoir right to tho artiolcs of dowry. 'l'hc rvorst cxamplc ol'this abhorring cpisodo is rnarrying thc daughtcrs with thc "lloly Quran" in somc parls ol' thc l)rovincc. 'l'his practicc howcvcr casts its rcal brunt on thc poor parcnts. 'l'hcy havc ncithor thc propcrty to givc to thcir daughtcrs and conscrvc it lor thcir sons and nor havo thc monoy to givc thcm tho articlos of ckrwry. 'l'hc hcalth carc. thc propcr clothing, I'coding and oducation of thc childrcn and othor larnily mcrnbcr is sacrificcd. 'l'hc othcr is tho oasc of thc rcal wrcLchcd and downtroddcn class ol'thc pcoplc who could not think of prcparing thc articlos of dowry lbr thoir daughtors at any cost. '['hcy aro too dostitutc to do it. 'l'hc day of thcir claughtr:rs' marriagc is to bc a day of hopc and .iubilation whcn thcy can drcam of ,uvcaring propc'r cl<lthr:s and I'cccling thcrnsclvc,s an<J thcir childrcn propcrly lirr a couplc <ll' days. l)ofinitcly all thc funds arc to flow liorn thc

groom, a wcll-to-do and suporannuatcd man, driving lbr his sccond or 3rd marriago. In both thc cascs, on thc day of marriagc, thc groorn and his companions, lricnds and rclativcs would oomo mountcd on tho vchiclos, acoording to thcir linancial <;ondition, liko tho cavaliors and archcrs in thc battloficld. firing in jubilation. 'l'hc art of ouphomism has madc us to oall this collcction of pcoplc, tho 'llarat'. Whcn thc pcoplc had not lcarnt this art, this mob was callod "Janait', thc assomblagc of 'Jins'. 'l'hc qucstion is, could a list ol- articlcs of dowry bc proparr:d, prcscntcd and got signcd by thc groom or his [-athcr, <;aptaining thc hot bloodod mob. 'l'hc answor in all circumstanccs is, irnpossiblc . ln 99o/o casos, thc plaintiff/wifc tolls a lic that thc list was proparcd at thc tirnc of marriago. In 0loZ oascs, shc still insists that shc is not tclling a lic. Insistcnco upon production ol- thc list l.hat was prcparod at tho tirno of tnarriagc so as to cntitlc a plaintifl- lor a dooroc lor thc rcturn ol'arti<;lcs of dowry would bc prcssuring hcr to tcll rnorc lics.

14.Itcfcrcncc may bc madc Lo Shahzad lnwar (2016; LIIC)r'r in which it was obscrvcd:

In our socicty parcnts usod to givc dowry artiolos to thcir daughtcrs as por thcir status. It is not possiblc lbr any bridc/wilc to kcop thc rccord of purchasc rcccipts, prcparc thc list of dowry articlcs. and obtaincd signaturcs liom bridcgroom/husband sidc. 'l'hc claims of dowry articlos arc ordinarily givcn to a bridc at th<: timc ol' hcr marriagc. Iloth thc bclow courts havc givon concurrcnt of lacts qua tho valur: ol' dowry a(iolcs.

15.Aziz-ur-Rehman l(2020; tlalochistan) 't is a I relativcly rcccnt casc on thc subject. In this case, the ta,shahzad y'nwqt' v. .4dditional District ,ludg,e ancl olhers,20 l6 MLI) 66lt I t.ahorc l.

t'.4:i:-ur-lleltnton tt. A4sl, llibi .Jameclu untl 2 others.2020 (ll,(l 3tt0 lllalochistan l.

Pagc - 12 - ol 15

Court, while relying on the Supreme Court's 2008 Muhammad I labib ruling, hcld that in our society, it is not possiblc lor a bridc/wife to kccp rcccipts of thc purchascd dowry articles and to obtain signatures of husbands and witnesses. 'fhe Courl considcrcd solitary statcmcnt of a wilc as suflicicnt proof o[ dowry articlcs. 'l'hc Courl also rclicd on Shakeela Bibi (supra).

16.A closc rcading of the above paragraph 8 ol'thc llozeena casc would show that the lcarncd coutl has rcfcrrcd to two classes of families. With utmost respect, this court would venturc to add a third category which is middlc class lamilics. It nccds no mcntion hcrc that thc vast majority of our population belongs to the middle class. While this court docsn't cntertain any cavil with thc abovc rcfcrrcd proposition, it is of thc firm vicw that in light of thc casc law discusscd abovc, thcrc is a judicial consensus on that the list of dowry articles is not prcparcd at thc timc rukhsati and no rccord of thcir purchasc is orclinarily maintained. 'l'his is ccrlainly owing to our cultural practiccs. 'l'he jurisprudcncc discusscd abovc implicitly inclincs to approve our cultural practices in this arca of social litc of which tamily is thc ccntral institution. Givcn thc fact that undcr thc 1964 family courts law, our lamily courts arc to resolve rathcr than to typically adjudicate larnily suit, this tcnds to bc litting wcll in cllbctivc rcsolution of lamily disputcs. Itccently, this courl has explicitly defined, cxplaincd and applied thc cultural contcxt in ccrtain farrily cascs. It has statcd that larnily courls nccd to rcsolvc lamily disputcs with a bchavioural approach with rcgard to psychological, social, and contcxtual explanation of human behaviour in

rnatrimonial rclationship.r6'l'hc bchavioural approach through cultural contexl takcs us to thc rcalm of lcgal anthropology which follows an inter-disciplinary approach that focuses on studying social ordering in a cross cultural contcxt.'' In lcgal anthropology, wc study Iaw not as a discretc entity being positivist in charactcr, but in a cross cultural contcxt. As li. Adamson I-loebel, lor cxamplc, has offcrcd anthropological dcflnition ol' law as undcr:

la I social nonr is lcgal il its ncglcct or inliaotion is rcgularly rnct. in thrcat or in lact, by lho applioation of physical lbr<;c by an individual or group posscssing thc socially rcoognizcd privilcgc of so acting."ls

17.Lcgal Anthropologists arguc that law should bc dcfincd by function rather than in its positivist cxpression. Anthropologists approach law lrom a comparativc pcrspective and cxaminc it in social contcxt. l,aw rclcrs to rulcs, proocsscs, and norms that rcgulatc social life. Lcgal anthropology, on the other hand, doesn't limit its attcntion to formal systcm of law and l') courts in contcmporary nation-statc.

18.'l'hc main focus ol anthropologists is on studying thc "proccsscs by which conflicts are handled and resolutions achicved".20 l-Iowevcr, it is worth clarilying t6ALst.

Nucliu tlibi v. Asacl Khan and others, WI'No. 494-M12020, tlccidcd orr 15.02.2023, A,fst. Sunteru& anotlter v y'r.shad ancl 2 other. WP 756-M/202 l. dccidcd on 06.03.2022, at thc Mingora llcnch.

''(irccnhousc (larol J. (1986), l'ralting Jbr Justice. l;aith, Order, und Communitl, in an Amcrican'l'own,lthaca: Corncll [Jnivcrsity Prcss. l8 Iloobcl, I'1. Adarnson. (1954). 'l'he l,aw o/'Primitive Man.llarvard, Massachusctts: Athcncurn.

'' M..ry, Sally Ii., and (lanficlcl, Mathcw (1. (200 l). Law; ,lnlhropologic'ul .lspec'ls. lr'r lnlernulionul lincl,cl6puedia o/ lhe Sociul & Behaviot'ul Sc'iencc.s. 2nd cdition, vol. l.l, pp. 5i5-54l, at 535.

l() ., , tntd.

that of latc, "it bccamc clear that focus on the process of rcsolving conflict could not bc scparatcd from considcration of rulcs and how thcy wcrc lbrmcd" (ibid. 537).21 'l'hus during thc proccss of settlcment, "the mcaning and rclcvance of rules are negotiatcd in dispute" (ibid). It is argucd that such:

ll lntcractivc undorstanding ol- rulos and proccsscs has provcd valuablo lor cxarnining thr: opcration of law in communitios as woll as in morc lbnnal scttings, su<;h as courts. It lcd tcl an approach that conccptualizcd law as rlorc dccply ornbcddcd within oulturc, as a systcm that r.vas both constitutcd by and <;onstructivc o1' social <lrclcring.22

19.'l'hc wisdom that can bc drawn from thc above discussion is that a family dispule should bc undcrstood more in thc contcxt and intcraction of culturc rathcr than cxclusivcly in law and that a lamily Court nccds to rcsolvc a disputc notably by means of rcconciliation, and as a goal-oricnLcd judicial powcr.

20.'['hc upshot of thc abovc discussion is that it is not ncccssary that thc dowry articlcs must bc listcd at thc timc of rutkhsati and that a rccord of its purchasc rcccipts must bc produccd in cvidence in a family suit. It is an cstablishcd facl that, as a cultural practice, purchasc rcccipts of dowry articlcs arc not rctainod. As a cultural norm, purchasc reccipts, if at all availablc, arc ncvcr shared by the parents of a bridc with the parents of a bridcgroom; instcad, il shown, thcy arc gcnerally dislikcd. Ilowcvcr, it mus[ bc kcpr in vicw that thc cvidcncc on dowry articlcs should bc asscsscd in thc lacts t" ihid.

''' tbtd.

I)agc - 15 - ol 15

A

and circumstanccs ol' a given cascs (llozeena, supra). Whcrc it is ncccssary, thc hnancial status of a bride's parents may bc challcngcd in cvidcncc so as to ensurc consistcncy and truthlulncss of thc witncsscs, including most notably of a wifc. Itcsultantly, this court has reached to the conclusion that the dccrcc of thc appcllatc court rcgarding thc dowry articlcs is found as uncxccptionablc. I lowcvcr, it wor-th obscrving that thc learned court appcllate court scems to have overlooked cxcluding itcrns # 27 and 2tl, bcing writtcn twicc in thc list. 'l'hosc itcms are l.hus cxcludcd accordingly. With this much modification in the decree of the appellate cour1, thc instant writ pctition is dismisscd.

Announccd 27 .tt.2023 (Ohafoor Taman)

.IU

t\ ,-Nt

(S.B) llon'blc Mr. .Iusticc Dr. Khurshid lqbal