IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT:  
MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO.4690 OF 2018 
(Against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, 
Mingora Bench (Dar ul Qaza) Swat dated 
17.10.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.319-
M/2018). 
 
Muhammad Jamil & others 
… 
Petitioners 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
Mst. Sajida Bibi & others 
… 
Respondents 
 
 
 
For the Petitioners  
: 
Raja Ghazanfar Ali Khan, ASC 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah AOR 
 
 
 
For the Respondents 
: 
NR 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 
12.08.2020 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT  
 
   
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J:- The instant 
civil petition has assailed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic 
Republic of Pakistan, 1973 seeking leave to appeal against the judgement 
dated 17.10.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of Peshawar High 
Court in writ petition No.319-M/2018 with a prayer to set aside the same in 
the interest of justice. 
2. 
 
Brief facts leading to file the instant petition are that 
respondent No.1 alongwith minors filed a family suit against the petitioners 
for recovery of dower in shape of 05 tolas of  gold ornaments, 03 tolas 
gold ornaments as personal ownership of respondent No.1 or its market 
value, maintenance @ Rs.6000/- per month since November 2013 till 
disposal of the suit and afterwards with 30% increase per annum for 
respondent No.1, maintenance @ Rs.3000/- per months since November, 
2013 till attaining age of majority plus 30% increase per annum each for 
Civil Petition No. 4690/2018 
-: 2 :-
petitioners No.2&3 and respondents No.2&3 (all minors) and recovery of 
dowry articles according to list annexed with plaint or market value thereof 
i.e. Rs.229500/-. Respondent No.1 also sought custody of petitioners 
No.2&3 till their attaining the age of majority.  
 
The suit was contested by petitioner No.1. He filed written 
statement with divergent stance. The learned trial court framed issues on 
the basis of pleadings of both parties and thereafter the evidence of the 
parties was recorded. Thereafter the learned trial court vide judgment and 
decree dated 16.09.2015 partially decreed the suit to the extent of 05 tolas 
dower and maintenance @ Rs.1000/- per months each for respondents 
No.2&3 since November 2013 with 25% increase per annum during the 
period they reside outside the house of petitioner No.1. The plea of 
petitioner No.1 for restitution of conjugal rights was decreed in his favour. 
 
Being aggrieved, both the parties preferred separate appeals 
before appellate court who vide consolidated judgment and decree dated 
09.06.2016 set aside the decree of the family court and remanded the 
case with the direction to record findings on issue No.07 relating to 
custody of the minors. Upon which learned family court decided the suit 
afresh vide judgment and decree dated 22.02.2017 by giving following 
findings: - 
“In view of the facts and circumstances narrated 
above, suit of the plaintiffs, to the extent of five tolas 
gold dower of plaintiff No.1 and maintenance amount 
for plaintiffs No.4&5 as Rs.1000/- with 25% per 
annum increase from November, 2013 till maturity or 
their marriages, whichever happens earlier, is 
decreed, while rest of the suit is dismissed.” 
 
 
In second round of litigation, both the parties approached to 
appellate court who vide consolidated judgment and decree dated 
23.09.2017 partially allowed the appeal of respondent No.1 and modified 
the judgment and decree of learned family court.  
Civil Petition No. 4690/2018 
-: 3 :-
 
It is pertinent to mention here that respondent No.1 also filed 
another suit on the ground that the petitioner No.1 has contracted second 
marriage without seeking permission from her, hence, she filed suit for 
dissolution of marriage on 10.02.2017 which was decreed in her favour 
vide judgment dated 25.01.2018. 
 
Feeling dissatisfied from the impugned judgment dated 
23.09.2019, passed by Additional District Judge, the petitioner filed 
constitutional petition before learned High Court Peshawar. The learned 
Single Bench after taking into consideration facts and circumstances 
dismissed the constitution petition in limine, however, the judgment of the 
appellate court was modified to the extent of payment of maintenance till 
the expiry of period of “Iddat”. 
3. 
 
At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner argued 
the matter half-heartedly.  The main stay of the arguments advanced by 
learned counsel for petitioner No.1 is that the recovery of dower is against 
the facts and prevailing law. Further contends that Mst. Sajida Bibi, the 
Ex-wife of the petitioner is not entitled to maintenance allowance when the 
petitioner No.1 has been granted decree for restitution of conjugal rights. 
Lastly, it is argued that judgments and decree passed by the learned 
courts below are liable to be set aside. 
4. 
 
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and 
gone through the record. 
 
 
There is no denial to this fact that the petitioner No.1 has 
contracted second marriage during subsistence of his marriage with Mst. 
Sajida Bibi (respondent No.1) without her permission or from Arbitration 
Council and section 6 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 
prohibits contracting second marriage without previous permission in 
Civil Petition No. 4690/2018 
-: 4 :-
writing of the Arbitration Council. The respondent No.1 filed suit for 
recovery of dower, dowry articles, gold ornaments and maintenance 
whereas the petitioner No.1 in his written statement prayed for restitution 
of conjugal rights as counter claim and the claim of the petitioner No.1 for 
restitution of conjugal rights was decreed whereas the suit filed by the 
respondent No.1 was partially decreed to the extent of five Tolas of gold 
as dower of respondent No.1 and maintenance amount for respondents 
No. 2 & 3 as Rs.1000/- with 25% per annum increase from November, 
2013 till maturity or their marriage which ever happens earlier and rest of 
the claim was dismissed. It is pertinent to mention here that the 
respondent No.1 afterwards filed a suit for dissolution of marriage which 
was decreed in her favour vide judgment and decree dated 25.01.2018 by 
the learned Judge Family Court. As the petitioner No.1 has contracted 
second marriage without the permission of his first wife i.e. respondent 
No.1 and Arbitration Council, therefore, as per section 6(5)(a) of Muslim 
Family Law Ordinance, 1961, the dower becomes immediately payable. It 
would be advantageous to reproduce said section:- 
Polygamy: (1)……. 
(2)……. 
(3)……. 
(4)……. 
(5) 
Any man who contracts another marriage without the 
permission of the Arbitration Council shall:- 
(a) 
Pay immediate the entire amount of dower whether 
prompt or deferred, due to the existing wife or wives 
which amount, if not so paid shall be recoverable as 
arrears of land revenue; and 
(b)…… 
 
 
It is now abundantly clear that the entire amount of dower fixed at the time 
of marriage whether prompt or deferred is immediately payable on 
account of second marriage. The petitioner No.1 by entering into second 
Civil Petition No. 4690/2018 
-: 5 :-
marriage without seeking prior permission either from the existing wife i.e. 
respondent No.1 or the Arbitration Council, the dower even if it is termed 
as deferred or prompt has become payable without any delay. Otherwise 
the provision of section 6 of the Muslim Family Law Ordinance, 1961 is in 
consonance with the injunctions of Islam. The said provisions has not 
placed any restriction to contract second marriage, rather it only relates to 
seeking permission before entering into second marriage in order to  
regulate the structure of society as a whole. Any deviation from the 
provision of section 6 of Muslim Family Law Ordinance, 1961, it might 
ensue number of issues which would frustrate the fabric of relationship 
within society, therefore, the judgment of the learned Single Bench of 
Peshawar High Court for immediate payment of dower (5 Tolas of gold) is 
quite in accordance with law. So far as recovery of maintenance 
allowance is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to 
point out any good reason qualifying interference into the judgment 
impugned before us. The learned High Court has rightly declined the 
prayer; hence, no other exception is called for. As a consequence, this 
petition is dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad,  
12.08.2020 
Not approved for reporting. 
Athar  
 
