The central legal point established in the judgment is that the dower amount should be reasonable with reference to the means of the husband and the status of the wife, as provided in the J&K Muslim Dower Act, 1920 AD.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant has preferred this Civil First Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20.10.2015 passed by the learned District Judge Rajouri, whereby he has been directed to pay an amount of Rs.2.00 lacs as deferred dower to the respondent along with costs of Rs.72,610/-.

2. The appellant feeling aggrieved, has assailed the impugned judgment on the grounds that the same has been passed without appreciating the true facts and evidence on record, contrary to the statutory requirement as mentioned in the J&K Muslim Dower Act, 1920 AD, according to which no decree can be issued against the party, if the dower amount is exorbitant keeping in view status of the parties; that the impugned judgment is bad on this ground as well as that important issues with regard to date of marriage as to whether the same was solemnized on 09.11.1996 or 09.12.1997 and genuineness of Nikahnama, which was relied upon by the respondent as plaintiff in the suit, has not been framed; that the impugned judgment is devoid of marriage law as has been passed without appreciating the true facts as were pleaded by the appellant as defendant and the statements of his witnesses; that the trial Court has not considered the Nikahnama which was produced/annexed by the appellant as defendant along with his written statement to the suit filed before the trial Court; that the trial Court had over-looked the contentions of the respondents that with the connivance of some persons, the respondent had prepared a false and forged Nikahnama which had been relied upon by the trial Court; that the judgment has not been passed, with regard to the customs of the area and status/position of the parties at the time of marriage and directed the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.2.00 lacs along with costs of the suit within a period of two months as a deferred dower which was not only excessive, unjust and unreasonable but is against the principle of natural justice and finally it was prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and decree.

3. The factual background as pleaded by the appellant before the trial Court and reiterated in the memorandum of appeal is that the parties got married on 09.12.1997 at village Targain and at the time of Nikah ceremony, the dower for an amount of Rs.20,000/- was fixed, out of which Rs.7,000/- was paid as prompt dower and an amount of Rs.13,000/- was deferred and that Nikah had been performed by Molvi Syed Shabir Shah in presence of competent/respectable persons of the area from both the sides.

4. Respondent as plaintiff filed a pauper suit seeking recovery of Rs.4,93,000/- as deferred dower and Rs.2,28,660/- as costs of the dowry articles asserting therein that the parties had a married life for 13 years and thereafter her husband turned her out of the matrimonial home and eventually on 23.12.2010 the defendant divorced her when proceedings were initiated against him claiming maintenance under section 488 of J&K CrPC. It is being pleaded that at the time of announcing of divorce, the husband had neither paid her deferred dower nor handed over other dowry articles to the wife, though requested by her and on refusal by the defendant she filed the suit before Trial Court.

5. The appellant as defendant before the Court below, while controverting the averments made in the plaint, in his written statement pleaded, inter alia, that at the time of marriage between the parties, the dower was fixed just as Rs.20,000/- out of which Rs.7,000/- was fixed as prompt and Rs.13,000/- was fixed as deferred and the defendant was ready to pay deferred dower for an amount of Rs.13,000/- to the plaintiff but she was not ready to receive the same. It was further alleged by him that his wife in connivance with some person got prepared a fake Nikahnama and that she was entitled to an amount of Rs.20,000/- only as per the Nikahnama executed at the time of marriage. It was also denied that the parents of the wife had ever given any arti