JUDGMENT Mr. Mahavir S. Chauhan, J.: (Oral) - Appellant Shakina was married to respondent Shakur Mohd. on 12.11.1997 at Village Dugni, Tehsil Dhuri District Sangrur. After marriage, she was taken to Village Dehleej Kalan. Her sister Nasran was also married on the same date, to elder brother of the respondent, namely, Roshan Khan. Shakina was harassed by her matrimonial family and was ultimately divorced by the respondent. 2. On these facts, appellant approached the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhuri, by way of Civil Suit No.622 of 2005 for recovery of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation (Rs.1,00,000/- on account of expenditure of marriage and Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation). 3. Suit was contested by the respondent by filing a written statement wherein, by way of preliminary objections, suit was said to be not maintainable besides being barred by time and principle of estoppel and the appellant was said to lack of locus standi. On merits, while admitting the factum of marriage it was alleged that the appellant and respondent never lived together as husband and wife and as such, the marriage was incomplete. Other averments of the plaint were denied. 4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of marriage and compensation? OPP 2. Whether present suit is not legally maintainable? OPD 3. Whether no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether marriage between the parties was not complete? OPD 5. Whether present suit is within limitation? OPD 6. Relief. 5. After both the sides had adduced their evidence, learned trial Court appraised the same, afforded an opportunity of hearing to both the sides and vide judgment/decree dated 05.02.2008 dismissed appellant’s suit with cost. Judgment/decree dated 05.02.2008 were challenged by way of Civil Appeal No.10 of 18.02.2010, which, after contest, has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, vide judgment/decree dated 04.05.2012. To assail judgment/decree dated 04.05.2012 instant Regular Second Appeal has been brought by the appellant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 7. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant was not paid Mehar and as such, is entitled to receive compensation for her maintenance and expenses incurred on the marriage. 8. To assail judgment/decree dated 04.05.2012 instant Regular Second Appeal has been brought by the appellant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 7. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant was not paid Mehar and as such, is entitled to receive compensation for her maintenance and expenses incurred on the marriage. 8. The contention, however, is untenable because payment of Mehar is a condition precedent for dissolution of a marriage in Muslim law. Even otherwise, it is not the case pleaded on behalf of the appellant before the learned trial Court. In fact, the plea of the appellant is that she was divorced by the respondent. Divorce is complete only after Mehar is paid and the marriage being in the nature of a contract, payment of Mehar is, in essence, compensation for termination of the matrimonial relationship. As regards expenditure of marriage, learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show any evidence to prove as to what amount was spent on the marriage and how is it recoverable from the respondent. 9. It is observed by the learned appellate Court that the appellant could not produce any provision of law entitling her to claim compensation. Even during the course of hearing, the learned counsel has not been able to support appellant’s pleas for her entitlement to compensation. 10. In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises in the appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. ---------0.B.S.0------------