IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
  
 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, CJ 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE SH. AZMAT SAEED 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO.1088 OF 2016 
(On appeal from the judgment dated 
19.2.2016 of the Lahore High Court, Multan 
Bench passed in FAO No.159 of 2010) 
 
Ghania Hassan wife of 
Muhammad Hassan Ahmad 
 
 
… Petitioner  
 
Versus 
Shahid Hussain Shahid son of 
Khadim Hussain and another  
 
 
… Respondents 
 
 
For the Petitioner  
: Syed Riaz-ul-Hassan Gillani, ASC 
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR (absent) 
 
  
For Respondent No.1 
: Mr. Muhammad Kokab Iqbal, 
AOR/ASC 
 
  
Respondent No.2 
: N.R. 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 22.09.2016 
  
 
  
 
 
 
JUDGMENT  
 
  
 
 SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.- This Civil Petition for 
Leave to Appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 
19.02.2016 of the learned Lahore High Court, Multan 
Bench, whereby FAO No.159 of 2010, filed by the 
present Petitioner, was dismissed.  
2. 
 
The brief facts necessary for adjudication of 
the lis at hand are that Respondent No.1 filed a Suit for 
CP No.1088 of 2016 
- 2 - 
recovery of Rs.1,48,50,000/- against Respondent No.2 
under Order XXXVII CPC on the basis of four cheques 
issued by Respondent No.2 in favour  of Respondent 
No.1. The Suit was decreed. Such decree has attained 
finality. 
Respondent 
No.1 
initiated 
execution 
proceedings against Respondent No.2, during the course 
whereof, the present Petitioner, who was claiming to be 
the wife of Respondent No.2, filed an Objection Petition 
asserting therein that she had married with Respondent 
No.2 on 20.12.2003 and the dower, as settled between 
the parties, reflected in the Nikahnama including some 
immovable property. It was further contended that by a 
subsequent arrangement/agreement arrived at between 
the spouses on 12.06.2007, the dower amount was 
increased so as to include 282 kanals and 5 marlas of 
land, hence, the immovable property mentioned as 
dower in Nikahnama as well as the immoveable property 
mentioned 
in 
the 
subsequent 
agreement 
dated 
12.06.2007 purporting to enhancement of the dower 
was 
not 
the 
property 
of 
the 
Judgment 
Debtor/Respondent No.2, hence, could not be attached 
or sold in execution of the decree in favour of 
Respondent N.o.1. The said Objection Petition was 
CP No.1088 of 2016 
- 3 - 
dismissed by the learned Executing Court vide Order 
dated 29.06.2010. Aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an 
Appeal i.e. FAO No.159 of 2010, which was dismissed 
vide impugned Judgment dated 19.02.2016.  
3. 
 
It is contended by the learned counsel for the 
Petitioner that the impugned Judgment is based on an 
erroneous assumption of law that the dower was agreed 
between the parties and mentioned in the Nikahnama 
could not be enhanced by the husband. It is further 
contended that the dispute inter se the parties could 
only be resolved through recording of evidence and not 
in a summary manner. The learned counsel further 
contended that there could be no dispute with regard to 
the property mentioned as dower in the Nikahnama and 
the said property cannot be subjected to execution of a 
decree against Respondent No.2.  
4. 
 
The 
learned 
counsel 
for 
the 
contesting 
Respondent No.1/Decree Holder did not seriously 
dispute the legal proposition canvassed at the bar by the 
other side that the dower, as settled between the 
spouses can be increased subsequently. The learned 
counsel for Respondent No.1 further stated that the 
Decree Holder has no intention of executing the decree 
CP No.1088 of 2016 
- 4 - 
against the immovable property mentioned in the 
Nikahnama. However, it was his case that the property 
mentioned 
in 
the 
subsequent 
document 
dated 
12.06.2007 was liable to be executed as the same vested 
with Respondent No.2/Judgment Debtor and the 
contentions of the Petitioner to the contrary are neither 
borne out from the record nor supported by the law. In 
fact, it is an obvious attempt to frustrate the execution 
of the decree in favour of Respondent No.1 
5. 
 
Heard and perused the available record.  
6. 
 
At the very outset, it has been noticed that by 
way of the impugned Judgment a passing reference has 
been made, which may be interpreted to mean that a 
dower once agreed between the parties could not be 
subsequently increased by the spouses. Such a 
proposition would be contrary to the settled law.  
7. 
 
In the Principles of Mohammadan Law by DF 
Mulla (Pakistan Edition), it has been stated as follows: 
“287. 
Dower may be fixed after 
marriage:- The amount of dower may be 
fixed either before or at the time of 
marriage or after marriage: 15 can be 
increased after marriage. 16” 
 
  
 
(emphasis supplied) 
 
CP No.1088 of 2016 
- 5 - 
  
In the Mahommedan Law Vol II (Containing the 
Law Relating to Succession and Status Compiled from 
Authorities in the Original Arabic) by Syed Ameer Ai, it 
has stated as follows: 
  
“Dower 
may 
be 
increased 
after 
marriage:- 
 
  
The Musulman Law accepted in the 
mater the more liberal principle of the pre 
Islamic Arab customs. Under the Islamic 
system there is no community of goods 
between 
husband 
and 
wife. 
She 
is 
absolute owner of her own property and of 
whatever the husband settles on her as 
dower. The terms of the settlement are 
agreed to before marriage, but when these 
have been omitted, they may be settled 
subsequently. The terms of the contract 
may be varied at any time during the 
continuance of the marriage by mutual 
consent. The wife has the power either to 
relinquish the whole dower-debt, or make 
an abatement in her husband’s favour: 
whilst the husband, similarly, has the 
power 
of 
making 
additions 
to 
her 
settlement or dower.  
 
The amount of the dower, as already 
pointed out, is either settled by the 
contract of marriage or by custom, or in 
the case of tafwiz or tahkim, by a 
subsequent 
agreement 
between 
the 
parties, or by an order of the Judge, or 
arbitrators.”  
          (emphasis supplied) 
 
In Hedaya (2nd Edition Vo.1 page 45) Commentary 
on the Muslim Law, it is stated that: 
“Case of an addition made to the dower 
after marriage.—if a man makes any 
addition to the dower in favour of his wife 
CP No.1088 of 2016 
- 6 - 
subsequent to the contract, such addition 
is binding upon him.” 
  
8. 
 
The question of addition of dower came up 
before this Court in the judgment, reported as Mian Aziz 
A. 
Sheikh 
v. 
The Commissioner 
of 
Income 
Tax 
Investigation, Lahore (PLD 1989 SC 613), wherein after 
examining the classical text books on the subject and the 
previous judgments of the Sub-continent on the matter 
in issue, it was observed as follows: 
 
“19. It would have been seen that an 
acknowledgement in any form including 
declaration by the husband with regard 
to increase of dower is, as held by the 
Lahore High Court in Chan Pir’s case, 
“quite sufficient” to prove the same 
under Muslim Law. …” 
 
A similar view was taken by this Court in the 
judgment, reported as Ameer Ali Khan v. Kishwar Bashir 
and another (PLD 2004 SC 746).  
An overview of the above reveals that it is now a 
settled proposition of law that the dower can be fixed 
before marriage and at time of marriage or thereafter. 
Furthermore, the dower once settled can always be 
increased by the husband or by an agreement between 
the parties.  
9. 
 
In the instant case, some immoveable property 
now being subjected to the execution was mentioned in 
CP No.1088 of 2016 
- 7 - 
the Nikahnama as dower. The learned counsel for 
Respondent No.1/Judgment Debtor has stated at the bar 
that such property shall not be subjected to the 
attachment or sale in execution, therefore, no question in 
respect thereof remains to be adjudicated upon.  
10.  
The only question requiring adjudication is the 
validity and effect of the document dated 12.06.2007.  
11.  
Respondent 
No.1 
filed 
a 
Suit 
against 
Respondent No.2 under Order XXXVII CPC. The said Suit 
was based on four cheques given by Respondent No.2 in 
favour of Respondent No.1. The Suit was decreed. Such 
decree attained finality. The execution proceedings were 
initiated, during the course whereof, the present 
Petitioner, the spouse of Respondent No.2, surfaced with 
the Objection Petition relying, inter alia, upon the 
document dated 12.06.2007. Respondent No.2, as 
informed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, is a 
fugitive from law. The Petitioner has also filed a Suit 
seeking enforcement of her rights in the property subject 
matter of the document dated 12.06.2007.  
12.  
In the above backdrop, the learned Executing 
Court was not satisfied with the bona fides of the 
Petitioner with regard to the Objection Petition and 
CP No.1088 of 2016 
- 8 - 
declined to allow the same at the stage prior i.e. to the 
final adjudication by the learned Family Court upon the 
Suit filed by the present Petitioner. The learned Appellate 
Court by way of the impugned Judgment concurred with 
the findings returned by the learned Executing Court. In 
the facts and circumstances of the case, we are also not 
persuaded to interfere in the matter. Consequently, this 
Civil Petition must fails subject to the observations made 
herein above. Furthermore, in view of the statement of 
the learned counsel for Respondent No.1, the decree 
shall not be executed against the immovable property 
mentioned in the Nikahnama.   
13.  
For the foregoing reasons, this Civil Petition is 
dismissed and leave declined.  
  
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
 
 
 
 
      Judge 
 
 
Bench-I 
Islamabad, the 
 
 
 
 
      Judge 
22nd  September, 2016 
Not approved for reporting  
Safdar/* 
 
 
