2012 PLP 1235 (YLR)

SYED SAJJAD HASSAN SHAH, J.

Qamar Zaman petitioner has challenged the judgment and decree dated 11-10-2010 passed by learned Civil Judge-IX/Judge Family Court, D.I.Khan to the extent of findings rendered under issues Nos.2 and 5 regarding dower and dowry articles.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that marriage of the spouses was solemnized on 14-2-2004 in lieu of dower amount of Rs.30,

000. At the time of marriage, a Kabin Nama was executed by the petitioner-defendant in favour of respondent-plaintiff showing Rs.30,000 as dower amount payable on demand.

3. The petitioner-defendant contested the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff by filing his written statement, wherein he denied the claim of the respondent-plaintiff and averred that the dower amount was paid, on the first night of marriage. The learned trial Court framed the issues in the light of pleadings of the parties and after affording ample opportunity to the parties for producing evidence, the arguments of learned counsel for the parties were heard and the suit of the respondent-plaintiff was decreed granting Rs.30,000 each as the value of dowry articles and dower amount and also decreed the suit of the petitioner-defendant for conjugal rights but on the condition of payment of prompt dower and maintenance.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant contended that the petitioner-defendant has paid the dower amount, therefore, the respondent- plaintiff has no locus standi to seek the decree for recovery of Rs.30,

000. He further contended that in this regard, ample evidence has been produced on record supporting the stance of the petitioner-defendant. Likewise, the learned counsel further argued that the respondent-plaintiff is also not entitled for the recovery of Rs.30,000 on account of value of the dowry articles. His last leg of arguments was that on acceptance of the instant petition, the suit of the respondent-plaintiff to the extent of dower and dowry articles may be dismissed.

5. As against that, the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff contended that the petitioner-defendant has miserably failed to prove the payment of dower amount. He further contended that the petitioner-defendant in support of his version did not produce any reliable evidence and also failed to rebut the cogent, convincing and confidence-inspiring evidence of the respondent-plaintiff. Lastly, he prayed for the dismissal of the instant petition.

6. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the available record.

7. A perusal of the record transpires that in order to prove the amount of dower, the respondent-plaintiff has produced a Kabin Nama along with her plaint and at the time of her statement before the Court, it was exhibited as Exh.P.W.1/1 showing Rs.30,000 as prompt dower. In support of her claim, she produced Muhammad Bilal (P.W.2) who also supported the claim of the respondent-plaintiff and one Muhammad Ismail as (P.W.3) who is the witness of Kabin Nama. He testified that the Kabin Nama was correctly recorded and he signed the same as a witness. Ahmad Ali Petition Writer was examined as (P.W.4) who had scribed the Kabin Nama and entered the same in his register at serial No.770. The same has also been produced as Exh.P.W.4/1. After having seen the original Kabin Nama, he testified that both the parties and witnesses signed the original Kabin Nama in his presence. The witnesses have been cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner-defendant but nothing has been brought on record favouring the petitioner-defendant. To rebut the claim of the respondent-plaintiff, besides the petitioner-defendant, Allah Bakhsh was examined as DW-2 who also admitted in his cross-examination that the Kabin Nama was executed at the time of Nikah of the parties but his statement being contradictory, cannot be relied upon. Moreover, he also admitted that the amount of dower was fixed as Rs.30,000.

8. As far as dowry articles are concerned, the petitioner-defendant has not denied the dowry as claimed by the respondent-plaintiff. However, in his statement, the petitioner-defendant stated that some of the dowry articles were in possession of respondent-plaintiff which were lying in a box, the key of which is with the respondent-plaintiff but he failed to produce any evidence in support of his stance. The respondent-plaintiff claimed Rs.90,000 but the learned trial Court passed the decree to the tune of Rs.30,000 as value of dowry articles for the reason that the marriage was solemnized six years ago and the said articles were in use of the spouses, therefore, approximate value of the articles was fixed by the learned trial Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant could not point out any illegality or irregularity muchless jurisdictional error in the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court calling for interference by this court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction.

9. For the reasons mentioned above, there is no force in the instant petition which is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./51/P Petition dismissed.