1. Both, the plaintiff and the defendant are aggrieved of the judgment and decree of learned District Judge, Anantnag, in civil suit titled Mst. Naseema v. Syed Nissar Hussain (File No.205/N) though for different reasons. The appellant is aggrieved that learned trial judge has held the Mehar (Dower), fixed at the time of marriage of the parties as 2500 Ashrafis (God Sovereign) regardless of the evidence on the file, the spirit of Shariah and the provisions of Jammu & Kashmir Muslim Dower Act and proceeded to pass a decree for Rs.7,56,000/- against the appellant. The respondent in her objections treated as cross appeal is aggrieved that learned trial judge has arbitrarily held one Ashrafi equal to 1.250 gms of gold and thus refused to grant a decree in favour of the respondent for an amount of Rs.96,25,000/- representing market value of 2.50 Kgs gold (2500 Ahsrafis of 10 gm each). 2. The admitted facts are as under: The appellant entered into a wedlock with the respondent on 11.10.1976 at Munda, Qazigund, Anantnag. The Mehar was fixed as 2500 Ashrafis out of which 900 Ashrafis were fixed as "Moujal" or prompt and 1600 as "Movajal" or deferred. The parties after their marriage had cordial relations for some time and two children--son and a daughter, were born out of the wedlock. The relations between the parties about two decades after their marriage became strained and according to the respondent the appellant disclosed in a meeting of respectables convened to resolve dispute between the parties that the appellant had divorced the respondent and thus acquired knowledge of the divorce on the said date. The respondent thereafter filed suit as an indigent person in the court of Principal District Judge, Anantnag, for recovery of dower both prompt and deferred which according to the respondent had remained unpaid and was thus recoverable from the appellant. The respondent also prayed for an amount of Rs.6,666/- on account of maintenance for the period of Iddat. The appellants stand before the trial court was that in lieu of the prompt dower an amount of Rs.25000/- was paid to the respondent immediately after the marriage and golden ornaments worth Rs.60,000/- were given to the respondent by the appellant from time to time after their marriage and agreed by the parties to have satisfied the respondents claim for deferred dower. In short, the appellant pleaded that no amount on account of dower--prompt or deferred had remained unpaid. It was averred that the respondent had with the help of her relations forcibly taken over possession of the appellants residential house at Shajipora and has been eversince in possession of the house as also the movable belonging to the appellant in the house. The appellant denied that the dower fixed at the time of marriage was 2500 golden sovereign but instead that the amount of dower was 2500 pound sterling i.e. currency of United Kingdom and that whole amount of dower had been paid. The appellant insisted that 2500 Ashrafis "Sika Raijul Waqat" was exaggerated. 3. The learned trial judge on perusal of the pleadings and other material settled following issues:- "1. Whether at the time of Nikah ceremony dower to the plaintiff was fixed 2500 gold sovereign. Whether the plaintiff is an indigent and is entitled to receive the amount of dower as mentioned? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff got the knowledge of divorce on 12.10.1987? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim maintenance for the period of Iddat? OPP. 4. Whether the defendant made the payment to the plaintiff from time to time, if yes, what is its effect on the suit? OPD. 5. Whether the matrimonial relation between the parties seized from year 1995 and the plaintiff deliberately separated from the defendant? OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiff is in illegal possession of the immovable property of the defendant? OPD. 7. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to?" 4. The respondent examined five witnesses, Syed Ghulam Ahmad, Nizam-ud-Din, Syed Hussain Bukhari, Syed Ghulam Nabi and Syed Mohammad Yaqoob, to prove the issues burden whereof was placed on the respondent. The respondent also stepped into the witness box. The appellant on the other hand examined three witnesses, Syed Mohammad Yasin, Mohammad Abdullah Ganai, Syed Mohammad Nayeem and himself appeared in the witness box. The learned trial judge after going through the pleadings and the evidence brought on the file and after hearing the parties decided all the issues in favour of the respondent, against the appellant. Learned trial judge held that 2500 Ashrafis (gold sovereign) were fixed as Mehar (dower) at the time of marriage between the parties; that the whole Mehar (dower) had remained unpaid and was thus recoverable from the appellant. Learned trial judge held that 2500 Ashrafis (gold sovereign) were fixed as Mehar (dower) at the time of marriage between the parties; that the whole Mehar (dower) had remained unpaid and was thus recoverable from the appellant. However, relying on the Futwa of Darul Ifta Wal Qaza Shariat-e-Islami, Bijbehara, one Ashrafi was held 1.250 gms of gold equivalent to Rs.300. The amount of Mehar (dower) fixed was thus equal to an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- and for the said amount decree was passed against the appellant. The appellant was also held to be under an obligation to pay an amount of Rs.6000/- on account of maintenance for the period of Iddat. Resultantly, a decree for an amount of Rs.7,56,000/- was passed against the appellant and in favour of the respondent. 5. The dower is like any other debt and wife may, like any other creditor, institute a suit for dower and can obtain a decree against the assets of her husband. However, the dower is not a secured debt, it is actionable claim and right to dower is transferable. There is neither any minimum nor any maximum as regards the dower to be settled by a muslim husband. However, there has been a practice to settle unusually large amounts as dower without any intention on the part of the bride and the bridegroom to either pay or recover such amounts. Such fictitious dowers are called Mehri Taljaii. The practice of fixing unusually high amounts only to enhance prestige of the bride without any intention to pay such amount led to legislation in some princely states of British India to legislate on the subject and carve out a role for Qazi or court to fix the reasonable amount. Such practice at times led to disastrous consequences for the legal heirs of the person settling high amounts beyond his means and not even commensurate with his financial status as Mehar or dower. Such legislation was made in the State of Oudh as back in 1876. Section 5 of Oudh Laws Act 1876 laid down that the court is not to award the amount of dower stipulated in the contract of marriage but only such sum as "shall be reasonable with reference to the means of the husband and the status of the wife". Section 5 of Oudh Laws Act 1876 laid down that the court is not to award the amount of dower stipulated in the contract of marriage but only such sum as "shall be reasonable with reference to the means of the husband and the status of the wife". The practice even finds mention in Futwa Alamgiri and in the Muslim Countries the Qaazi was given the power to reduce excessive dowers. The State of Jammu & Kashmir was the second State to take notice of the practice and enact the Jammu & Kashmir Muslim Dower Act 1920 A.D. Section 2 of the Act relevant to the present controversy needs to be noticed:- "2. Where the amount of dower is stipulated for in any contract of dower by a Mohammedan is excessive with reference to the means of the husband the entire sum provided in the contract shall not be awarded in any suit by decree in favour of the plaintiff, or by allowing it by way of set off lien or otherwise to the defendant; but the amount of dower to be allowed by the courts shall be reasonable with reference to the means of the husband and the status of the wife. This rule shall be applicable whether the suit to enforce the contract be brought in the husbands life time or after his death." 6. Mehar or dower is an obligation imposed upon the husband as a mark of respect to the wife. It is not like consideration in case of a contract in the strict sense of the term. If for some reason Mehar (dower) is not settled or remains unspecified at the time of marriage the marriage is not rendered invalid but the law presumes settlement of dower estimated on settled principle. It nonetheless is not a purely optional act but is absolutely obligatory. In such cases, where no dower is fixed at the time of marriage or has not been specified intentionally or intentionally left indeterminate the wife becomes entitled to the Mehar Misal i.e. the dower of her equals or the customary dower. In such cases, the Mehar or dower fixed in case of female paternal relations of the woman assumes significance. The husband may settle any amount he likes by way of dower upon his wife. But once an amount is settled, there is no escape from its payment to the wife. In such cases, the Mehar or dower fixed in case of female paternal relations of the woman assumes significance. The husband may settle any amount he likes by way of dower upon his wife. But once an amount is settled, there is no escape from its payment to the wife. The amount of dower may be split in two parts--the prompt or moujal (to be paid with ijelat) and deferred or movajal. The prompt or moujal part of the dower is paid immediately after the marriage or as and when demanded by the wife, whereas, as a matter of practice, deferred or movajal is paid at the time of dissolution of the marriage. The wife nonetheless may ask for the deferred or movajal part of the dower when the marriage is not dissolved but of course at a latter stage. 7. The controversy in the present case before the trial court was whether the appellant had settled 2500 Ashrafis (gold sovereigns) each weighing 10 gms as dower at the time of his marriage with the respondent and whether such amount was recoverable from the appellant. The trial court while going through the evidence adduced by the respondent in support of her case failed to appreciate some important aspects of the case set up by the respondent. In the first place learned trial judge failed to appreciate that as per statement of PW Syed Ghulam Ahmad, witnesses to Nikah Nama EXPW2/1, one third of the dower fixed was relinquished by the respondent and that even the respondent in her statement admitted that one third of the dower fixed was relinquished by the respondent. In face of clear and un-ambiguous admission on behalf of the respondent, there was no occasion for the learned trial judge to hold that an amount equal to 2500 Ashrafis was recoverable from the appellant moreso when the respondent in her statement admitted that only two third of the dower was recoverable from the appellant. Again the trial court though making mention of Jammu & Kashmir Dower Act 1920 in the judgment avoided to opine whether the dower mentioned in the Nikah Nama EXPW2/1 was excessive having regard to means of the husband and the status of the wife and the court was required to find out the reasonable dower having regard to the circumstances spelt out in Section 2 of the Act. The trial court failed to take notice of discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses examined by the respondent and who claimed to have been present at the time of Nikah ceremony while PW Syed Ghulam Ahmad insisted that 2500 Ashrafis were settled as dower. PW Nizam-ud-Din claiming to be present in the Nikah ceremony has given the amount of dower as 250 Ashrafis. PW Nizam-ud-Din has further deposed that as per the custom prevailing in the family of the parties to the suit 250 Ashrafis are fixed as dower. It is pertinent to mention that the appellant and respondent are members of the same clan and independent of their marital relations closely related to each other. The respondent has insisted that 2700 gold sovereigns were fixed as Mehar out of which one third was relinquished by her. If the respondent is to be believed, 2.7 KGs of gold was settled as dower. The parties belong to a far flung hamlet of Kashmir Valley and have a middle class background. The economic and social status of the parties is evident from the place to which they belong as also the surrounding circumstances. It is pertinent to point out that in Nikah Nama EXPW2/1 Thaan or ornaments/ jewelry and apparel that has been gifted by the appellant to the respondent is shown to be of the value of Rs.3000/-. It is pertinent to mention that though Thaan is not an essential requirement of Nikkah yet as per practice the jewelry and the apparel that are gifted by the bridegroom to the bride at the time of marriage or their value is mentioned in the Nikah Nama. This is indicative of the economic status of the parties. 8. Having regard to all relevant factors the dower reflected in the Nikah Nama is excessive, exaggerated and not intended to be paid by the bridegroom to the bride. So viewed, the trial court was required to arrive at a conclusion regarding reasonable amount of dower that the appellant would have been asked to pay the respondent. The trial court by omitting to embark on such an exercise has mis-directed itself resulting in miscarriage of justice. 9. The learned trial judge after holding the appellant to be under an obligation to pay an amount representing value of 2500 Ashrafis has relied upon futwa of "Darul Ifta Wal Qaza Shariat-e-lslami, Bijbehara". The trial court by omitting to embark on such an exercise has mis-directed itself resulting in miscarriage of justice. 9. The learned trial judge after holding the appellant to be under an obligation to pay an amount representing value of 2500 Ashrafis has relied upon futwa of "Darul Ifta Wal Qaza Shariat-e-lslami, Bijbehara". There is an agreement between the parties that the Futwa relied upon by the trial judge to opine that one Ashrafi was equivalent to 1.250 gms of gold was presented by neither of the parties and that it was not known in what circumstances the photo copy of Futwa had found place in the file. It is also agreed by the parties that the parties were unaware of the facts and circumstances in which Futwa was made or the case in which Darul Ifta Wal Qaza was asked to give the Futwa. There was no reason for learned trial judge to rely upon a document which was nothing but an opinion not pressed into service by either of the parties. A Futwa is nothing but an opinion of the Mufti on a subject and is made in context of the dispute or controversy presented before the Mufti. In the present case, as is agreed upon by the parties, the context in which the Futwa was made was neither known to the parties nor to the court. The reliance on the Futwa was thus grossly mis-placed. 10. From the above discussion, it abundantly clear that the findings return by learned trial judge on the issue No.1 is not tenable and liable to be overset. In view of the invalidity of the findings returned on issue No.1, the conclusions drawn by learned trial judge and reflected in issue No.1 cannot stand. 11. In the circumstances and for the reasons discussed above, the findings returned on issues 1 and 7 are set-aside. The case is remanded to learned trial judge with a direction to determine the reasonable dower within meaning of Section 2 of the Jammu & Kashmir Dower Act 1920 and thereafter decide the suit accordingly. The trial court may frame an issue in this regard so that parties are aware of the controversy and adduce evidence in support of their respective stand. The trial court may frame an issue in this regard so that parties are aware of the controversy and adduce evidence in support of their respective stand. The amount of Rs.2 lakhs deposited with the Registry shall be remitted to the trial court to be deposited with the Nazir of the Court and any orders in respect of the amount shall be made by the learned trial judge. Appeal disposed of.