Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In his cross-examination he stated that an amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- was fixed as dower .He admitted the suggestion that if prompt dower is not paid the marriage becomes illegal. That he does not know how much dower is prompt and how much of it was deferred .That defendant sent a letter of divorce to plaintiff from Saudi Arab .That he cannot tell whether amount of dower was paid by defendant to plaintiff at the time of divorce.

PW Salam Din in his statement deposed that plaintiff is his daughter and she was married to defendant in the year 1988.That a nikahnama was prepared. That an amount of 1,25000/- was fixed as dower ,out of which an amount of Rs. 15000/- was paid by defendant .whereas an amount of Rs. 1,10000/- was payable by him. That nikah was performed by Moulvi Ibrahim .That besides him Abdul Rehman, Ghulam Hussain and Ahmed Din were witnesses to the nikah. At the time of nikah PW Madha was also present over there. That nikahnama EXP-SD was prepared .That he has given dowry valuing Rs.1,00,700/- to his daughter .That about six years back defendant had divorced plaintiff and at the time of divorce he did not pay the amount of dower-to her.

In his cross examination he stated that he does not remember as to whether dower in respect of any other girl was fixed at Rs. 2 lacs in the year 1988. He denied the suggestion that nikah was performed orally and that no nikahnama was prepared. He denied the suggestion that dower was fixed at Rs.10000/-.

PW Ghulam Hiissain in his statement deposed that parties entered into wed-lock in the year 1988 and he was present in that marriage. That he was witness to the marriage. That he put his thumb impression on nikahnama as its witness. That at the time of marriage prompt dower of Rs. 15000/- and deferred dower of Rs. 1,10000/- was fixed. That in his presence defendant did not pay any amount of dower to the plaintiff.

In his cross-examination he denied the suggestion that in connivance with defendant he is deposing falsehood. He also denied the suggestion that an amount of Rs. 1,25000/- was fixed as dower between the parties out of which an amount of Rs.15000/- was prompt and an amount of Rs. 1,10000/- was deferred dower. That he cannot write Urdu. That nikahnama prepared by him are being drafted by his son Mohd. Bashir .That now he has left this job. That Moulvi Sadiq he is Mouivi of village Draj. He denied the suggestion that during the period in question; his son in law accompanied him at the time of nikah. He denied the suggestion that nikahnama EXP-SD was prepared by him through his son in law.

9. The trial court while deciding the issues held as under:

Issue No. 1: From the evidence led by plaintiff, the assertion that dower fixed in this case was Rs. 1,25,000/- out of which Rs. 15000/- was prompt and Rs. 1,00,000/- was deferred dower, is not established, whereas the assertion of defendant that dower fixed at the time of marriage of parties was Rs. 10,000/- is established from the evidence led by him. Issue no. 1, therefore, is not proved and is accordingly decided in favour of defendant and against the plaintiff.