LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has declared that refusal by a family court to entertain a plea of a man who voluntarily wishes to return dowry items to his former wife is bad in law.

Uzair Azmat, the petitioner before the high court, divorced his wife and also approached her through common acquaintances for the return of dowry articles because he claimed that he did not want the dowry articles to rot and lose their actual worth. However, the petitioner did not receive any response from his former wife and approached a family court where he filed a suit for returning dowry articles.

The respondent (wife) did not appear and was proceeded against ex parte. However, a family court, while appreciating the noble gesture of the petitioner, dismissed his suit with an observation that a suit for recovery of dowry articles was to be proceeded by the wife.

The husband challenged the family court’s order before the LHC. His counsel argued before the court that there was no prohibition in the Family Courts Act, 1964 for a husband to file a suit for returning dowry articles and the only yardstick and condition for attracting the jurisdiction of a family court is the subject matter with respect to which a suit has been filed.

Justice Muhammad Shan Gul, before deciding the petition, observes that the question raised in the petition is perhaps a question of first impression in which a husband has stepped forward to volunteer the return of dowry articles brought home by his wife at the time of marriage. He says this unconventional approach has been discarded by a judge of a family court upon a suit filed by the petitioner.

During the initial hearing of the petition, the former wife of the petitioner, following a notice through local police, appeared before the LHC and stated that she was quite willing to take back dowry articles but had not filed a suit for recovery due to her financial conditions. She asked the court to help her get back her dowry articles.

Justice Gul appointed a bailiff to collect, receive and restore the dowry articles to the respondent who also acknowledged that she received all her dowry articles and nothing remained to be returned.

Although the judge disposed of the matter relating to the dowry items since the petition borne fruit, he sought assistance of Sabahat Rizvi, a lawyer of Supreme Court, as a friend of court on the question whether a suit such as the one in issue could be entertained by the family court at the instance of a husband?

The lawyer said the family court wrongly rejected the suit filed by the petitioner and that the order was bad in law and deserved to be set aside. She argued that a declaration needed to be issued that the suit at the instance of a husband for return of dowry articles was maintainable in terms of the Family Courts Act, 1964.

In his judgement, Justice Gul observes that family courts, no doubt, have jurisdiction to entertain a suit filed by a wife seeking recovery of her dowry articles but neither has any distinction about what type of suit can be brought by a husband or a wife has been drawn in the Act. He notes that the jurisdiction for entertaining any dispute regarding any matter pertaining to dowry is liberally conferred upon a family court by section 5 of the Act.

He says section 7 of the Act relating to the institution of suits refers to the terms plaintiff without specifying the gender of the plaintiff.

“Can the word “wife” be read into the statute instead of “plaintiff” when the matter is that of dowry? Relief sought may be returned by the husband or retrieval by the wife,” the judge explains. He maintains that the interpretation pursued by the trial court (family court) would limit the scope of jurisdiction of the family courts even when no such limitation is either prescribed nor would it sit well with the purpose of enactment of the Act.

Whereas, he says, it is expedient to make provision for the establishment of family courts for the expeditious settlement and disposal of disputes relating to marriage and family affairs and for matters connected therewith.

“Hence, it is declared that the refusal by a judge family court in entertaining the matter in issue is bad in law. The same is declared to be of no legal effect,” the judge concludes his recently issued judgment.

Published in Dawn, August 17th, 2022