Police officers walk past the Supreme Court of Pakistan building, in Islamabad, Pakistan, April 6, 2022. REUTERS
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court has stated that property owned by a third party cannot be included as part of dowry without the clear consent of the owner.
The ruling came in a civil petition seeking leave to appeal against a March 22, 2024 decision of the Peshawar High Court (PHC). A three-member SC bench converted the petition into an appeal and partially allowed it.
The PHC had confirmed the simultaneous findings of the family and appellate courts in favor of respondent Fozia Tabassum Afridi, in a case arising out of a family dispute over a plot in Peshawar.
The lower courts had ruled on their suit to recover dowry, including Rs 500,000 in cash, gold ornaments and a canal plot located in Peshawar. The controversy before the SC centered on whether the plot could validly be treated as part of the dowry.
The property was claimed by the petitioner, Fozai’s father-in-law, who claimed that he was the owner of the plot and that he had neither signed the Nikahnama nor consented to its inclusion in the dowry.
According to the record, the marriage between Fozia and Sahibzada Muhammad Ali was solemnized on January 27, 2009, followed by rukhsati on April 25, 2009.
A document described as “Kabeen Nama”, allegedly executed on February 24, 2009, mentioned the disputed plot as part of the dowry. The defendant relied on this document to support her claim. However, the petitioner categorically denied having executed the Kabeen Nama and his alleged signatures as a witness.
The Supreme Court, in the verdict written by Justice Musarrat Hilali, observed that once such denial was made, the burden of proof shifted to the defendant to establish the authenticity of the document through cogent and legally admissible evidence.
The court found that the defendant had not met this burden. He observed that the Kabeen Nama was not proven by direct evidence nor were the disputed signatures subjected to forensic examination.
The SC further highlighted a key inconsistency regarding the ownership of the plot. While Kabeen Nama suggested that the husband owned the property based on a mutation entry, no documentary evidence supported this claim.
In contrast, income records presented through official testimony showed petitioner as the registered owner. The court reaffirmed the established legal principle: a property owned by a third party cannot form part of the dowry unless there is clear, unequivocal and proven consent of the owner.
In this case, the court found that the petitioner was not a signatory to the Nikahnama, and the subsequent alleged consent through the Kabeen Nama was also not proven.
He also pointed out legal deficiencies in the lower courts’ rulings, noting that they did not adequately weigh material evidence and were based on assumptions rather than legally sound reasoning.
