HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) BELIEVING the defendants witness that the petitioner was given five tolas of Gold and forty tolas of silver by way of ornaments at or about
the time of her marriage, the trial court has refused her the permission
to file the suit for recovery of dower debt and maintenance as pauper.
(2.) TODAY I have heard learned counsel 1 for the petitioner alone as no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent despite the fact that
the case was called a number of times.
(3.) THE only ground as appears from the judgment of the trial court on which the petitioner has been disappeared is that she received five
tolas of gold and forty tolas of silver at or about the time of her
marriage. The petitioner as well as her witnesses clearly state that she
is left with no property out of which she can pay the court fee on the
proposed suit. In these circumstances therefore unless the trial court
came to the conclusion that those ornaments weighing five tolas of gold
and forty tolas of silver were still with her in tact, she could not have
been disappeared. There is no such finding recorded by it. That apart,
maintenance has been claimed not only on behalf of the petitioner but on
behalf of her minor children as well. Assuming though not granting that
she was able to pay the court fee, she was not obliged to pay the same on
behalf of her minor children as well. This aspect appears to have been
clearly overlooked by the trial court in dispaupering the petitioner.
Allowing the revision petition I set aside the order of the trial
court and declare the petitioner as a pauper entitled to bring her suit
as such. The trial court will now register her application as a regular
suit and proceed to dispose it of in accordance with law.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.