BEFORE HON’ABLE II CIVIL & FAMILY JUDGE
KARACHI CENTRAL
Family Suit No. 125 2020
MST. Andleeb Fayaz
VERSUS
Mr. Muhammad Rizwan
Suit for Dissolution of Marriage by way of Khulla, Maintenance and Recovery of
Dowery Articles
Written Statement of Behalf of Defendant
Answering Defendant submits with utmost reverence as under:
Preliminary objective
1. That as per as the instant lis is concerned suffice to say that this court
lacks inherent jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter in hand , the plaintiff was
permanently living at Arif Wala District Pakistan Punjab where she had got
decided her matrimonial dispute ie the dissolution of marriage , however the
same hardly requires any decree since the answering Defendant has already
sent first Notice Talaq even before institution of instant case. The fact has
also been brought on the file by the plaintiff on 30th January 2020 as the
same has been requested to be deleted by her through learned counsel . The
first notice has also been endorsed to Union Council No 35 an urban
municipal entity in Tehsil Head Quarter Arifwala as such the proceedings
vis -a -vis reconciliation etc in pursuance to respective family statutes and
yet , are expected to be dealt with in due course. 2. The plaintiff is likely to
appear before the designated Administrator Union Council for resolving the
issues entailing with the marriage now virtually revoked. In such like
context the plaintiff’s genuine claims for retrieval of dower articles would be
addressed to the best of her satisfaction. Now she had travelled to a distant
territory with malicious intention just to harass and black mail the answering
defendant.
3. It is simply an act of pressure tactics to black mail answering defendant
only causing him to travel long distances. Plaintiffs stay in present set of
affairs may be like a visitor filing a lis here and then flying back to the
original abode
4. This court ought to consciously investigate the matter of primary
objections about the residence of the plaintiff first . Whether it comes with in
the ambit of a trip to Karachi or she is resident of this area which is
territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’able court. The question of jurisdiction is
the core issue of this lis required to be answered as per littoral and lateral
language of the subjective issue.
This issue being primordial in the whole affair thus to be decided first before
embarking upon the factual controversy if any laid in the suit.
On facts.
1. Needs no comments from the answering defendant.
2. It is sheer false statement that the answering defendant did not pay
dower amount. The mystery of remaining issueless remained private
to the plaintiff since she never divulged or shared her reports with the
answering Defendant.
3. It is correct that the plaintiff was given dower articles but the same
has not been mentioned correctly as the mala fide intention of plaintiff
is to harass her erstwhile husband with ulterior motives , the list
appended with the suit is a frame up and concoction as the family of
plaintiff has never been so affluent thus they indeed acted in
accordance to their financial resources : which were modest and quite
in line with the social standards prevailing in the families of lower
middle class in the province of Punjab. Fortunately a list prepared and
kept in the safe custody along with other documents has been traced .
The same is being appended herewith in original. The 12 tola
jewellery’ etc is a fiction as just 1 and half tola jewellery‘s items were
given to her and the same are in her custody. The furniture and the
rest of items as reflected in the list available to the answering
defendant for returning to the plaintiff. The items are lying in tact
since the plaintiff left Pakpattan Shareef. No air conditioner was ever
given to the plaintiff. The photos of entire living sections of the abode
of answering defendant are being appended. A real sister of answering
defendant is living in a separate room where in a gadget for air
conditioning was installed by her since she is 16 Grade Teacher at an
Institute for special children. The plaintiff and her bona fide agent
may take away the articles any moment. The accrual of institution of a
suit for recovery is also a false assertion and is vehemently denied.
The other allegations are also denied e.g., the rude behavior and filthy
language.
4. It too is incorrect. The plaintiff left the abode of answering defendant
on ——- and later the answering defendant exercised his legal right in
revoking the marriage ties.
5. It too is denied. Answering defendant would act with grace and pledge
solemnly not to recall the good or bad days . After pronouncement of
Talaq the context of litigation has altogether changed. Thus residual
issue for sorting out or resolving is carrying the entire articles of
dower lying at the place of answering defendant. The answering
defendant is running a shop but not eating the so an inflated status of
merchandise from where he is earning one lac. The maintenance as
fixed by the Hon’able court from 30-12-2019 to date of Iddat would
be paid in given context.
6. It too is denied.
7. It too is denied and is subjective in narrative. The medical expenses
were always borne by the answering defendant.
8. It too is incorrect and vehemently denied.
9. It too is incorrect.
10. It too is denied and out of given context where in the decree of the
court would be ordered in the limits of reduced text of the suit. The
defendant is being unjustly harassed at a court of law at Karachi since
the plaintiff is permanently settled at Arifwal Pakpattan District in the
Province of Punjab.
11. It too is incorrect.
12. The rights given in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of
Pakistan 1973 and the norms and commandments given in the Quran
and Sunnah is an article of faith for a Muslim thus answering
defendant being faithful Muslim bowes before the same.
13. Needs no comments as the end of Marriage ties is a fait accompli. The
answering defendant has provided almost all answers in the preceding
paras.
14. It is incorrect and becomes irrelevant in the overall context and
circumstances.
15. It too is a hyperbolic assertion thus has no relevance with the issues
lying before the Hon’able court. The revocation of marriage has
already been made.
16. No need to reply. The text and reasons given in the first notice Talaq
is enough in the given context.
17. It too is incorrect and denied. The preliminary objections be given
precedence in weighing the correctness of assertion made by the
plaintiff. The plaintiff is busy harassing the answering defendant as he
is facing hardship in the hour of appearing a court at a long distance
by travelling down to Karachi from the central Punjab. The plaintiff
be advised to seek relief from the court of her ancestral abode.
18. Legal.
PRAYER
In the light of forgoing circumstances it is prayed that this Hon’able
Court may graciously dismiss the unjust pleas taken by the plaintiff
vis a vis status of the answering defendant and to fix the maintenance
allowance in the light of his social and financial status. So as the
plaintiff’s fabrication in making an hefty and fictional list of articles
of dowry(mentioned under serial C of the portion of related of prayer)
be substituted with the actual list being appended with written
statement as the same was also prepared by the plaintiff in the hour of
marriage. The plaintiff is ready to handover the dower articles lying at
his place where she left on 30-12-2019 any time to the plaintiff or her
bona fide agent. The alternate claim is frame up thus be rejected.
D. The seventy thousand’s claim for medical be also rejected as the e
ntire expenses were born and paid by the defendant at all times.
Answering Defendant
Advocate for the
Defendant
Verification
I , Muhammad Rizwan son of Muhammad Zakir Chaudhry, Muslim
adult , R/O Pakpattan, do hereby verify and declare on oath on this
—- day of February 2020 , that whatever has been stated in above as
answering defendant ‘s version , is true to the best of my knowledge
and belief.
Deponent
I identify the above named deponent.
Advocate for the Defendant
Solemnly affirmed before me at Karachi , this —— of February 2020 by the
deponent above named , who is by ——————
Advocate who is known to me personally.
Commissioner For Taking Affidavit
