Lahore: Lahore High Court (LHC) has remarked the husband can demand for return of that haq mahr (dower) in exchange for Khula which he has paid on his own.

The court further remarked if the amount was paid by the father of wife to purchase gold given in Haq Mahr and the husband could not prove payment from his side then he is not entitled to get back gold or its price.

The court made these remarks while issuing an important decision regarding Khula, haq mahr, dowry and ownership of the house in the name of wife.

Justice Rahil Kamran Sheikh while announcing decision on the dispute between Dr Rukhsana Kausar and Shahid Nazir approved the petition of wife partly.

The court abolished the order for returning 11 tola gold or its price to husband.

The court remarked all the evidence available on record prove that amount was provided by father of wife for purchasing 11 told gold. While the husband could not present credible evidence of making payment of the money. The husband cannot be made entitled for returning the gold to him only due to entry of haq mahr in Nikkah nama.

The court maintained that in the event of khula , the principle of returning the haq mahr will be applicable only when it is proved that the respective haq mahr was paid in fact by the husband. If the payment is not proved by the husband then the wife cannot be made bound to return that goods for the purchase of which her father had provided money.

In the decision the court declared important the contradictory stance regarding the financial position of the husband.

The court said the husband on one side kept on making claim of having financial position of purchasing home valuing Rs 19 lac 50 thousands and 11 tolas gold. On the other hand he kept on showing his financial condition weak in the matter of nan nafqa related to child.

The court maintained nan nafqa of underage child is not only legal but also moral and social responsibility of father.

Father cannot be absolved from his responsibility by showing his income less.

The court maintained on the matter of ownership of home bank record and evidence of witnesses proved the money for purchasing home was paid by the father of lady. The husband could not present credible documents in support of his claim for purchase of house out of his own resources.

The court rejected the claim of husband that the occupation of house was not given to father.

According to court woman herself was legal owner of the house and was residing in the house. Therefore, separate transfer of occupation of house apparently in any way was not necessary.

The court upheld subordinate court decision regarding rejection of claim for returning 22 tolas jewelry and Rs 63000 against maternity expenses.

According to court the woman could not prove the said ornaments were left in the possession of husband or family of his husband while no credible proof was provided regarding payment of maternity charges by her parents.

LHC while approving the plea of wife partly abolished the order for returning 11 tola gold and its price to husband. Upholding the other parts of the decision the court rejected the other petitions of the husband.