2009 PLP 1293 (YLR)

S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J.--Through this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the judgment and decree, dated 30-6-2008 of the learned Judge, Family Court decreeing the suit for recovery of dowry articles to the tune of Rs.2,50,000 as value thereof and, dated 11-11-2008 of the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi Bahauddin affirming the same. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 had filed a suit for recovery of dowry articles against the petitioner. She was divorced and was allegedly turned out from the house of the petitioner. The petitioner/defendant using restraint, admitted the claim of dowry articles to some extent in the written statement. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:-- ISSUES:-- (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery the dowry articles mentioned in head note of the plaint or in alternative price thereof amounting to Rs.8,68,550 as prayed for? OPP (2) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is false and frivoious and the same is liable to be dismissed? (2-A) Whether the plaintiff does not reside within the territorial juris diction of this Court and this Court has no territorial jurisdiction? OPD (3) Relief. 3. After recording evidence, the learned trial Judge decided issue No.1 in favour of respondent No.1 and decreed the claim of respondent No.1/plaintiff to the tune of Rs.2,50,000 as value of the dowry articles which were in possession of the petitioner. The claim of respondent No.1/plaintiff was of recovery of dowry articles or in alternative decree to the tune of Rs.8,68,550. Both the parties filed appeals but those were dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that it was the duty the Courts below to have determined as to which were the articles proved to be in his possession, irrespective of his stand in the pleadings and in the course of evidence. The raison d'etre of his plea was that the decree in the alternative in shape .of money to the tune of Rs.2,50,000 was unwarranted. 5. I have gone through the pleadings and the entire evidence led by the parties for and against. A Court would help only those litigants whose approach to it is honest and fair. In the present case, the petitioner himself has been taking a wavering stand. He never made a straight version that such and such articles of dowry were in his possession and that such and such were not. Family Laws were framed with a view to make expeditious disposal of family disputes. It was for this reason that vide section 17 of the Family Courts Act, 1964, the provisions of C.P.C., except sections 10 and 11, and those of Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 were excluded from their application and instead a specific procedure was provided under the Family Laws. In the present case, both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion that respondent No.1 was entitled to the decree of Rs.2,50,000 as value of the dowry articles, as -against her claim for Rs.8,68,550. The petitioner in his own way is still not satisfied. 6. Before striking down the orders of the Courts having exclusive jurisdiction, the High Court in writ jurisdiction must explore every possible explanation for their validity, and examine the entire field of power and all efforts should be made to uphold them. Where the orders are reasonable, just and proper, the High Court should not allow a situation to arise, which would amount to deflecting the normal powers mandated by law. In other words, the High Court while sitting in writ jurisdiction, should not substitute judgments, which are otherwise reasonable, just and proper. 7. In the present case, I am not persuaded that any case is made out for f interference with the concurrent judgments/decrees passed by the two Courts below. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M-190/L Petition allowed.