2010 PLP 930 (MLD)

ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J.

The petitioner, who is aggrieved of a judgment and decree, dated 3-9-2008 passed by the learned appellate Court, filed this constitutional petition to invalidate the same.

2. Shortly, the facts are that the respondent who was married with the petitioner, because of the strained relations and conduct of the respondent had to file a suit for the recovery of dower amount and dowry articles valuing Rs.1,11,

100. It was contended in the plaint that at the time of marriage, dower amount was fixed at Rs.80,000 out of which Rs.500 was paid at the spot whereas the remaining amount is yet to be paid and further at the time of marriage, the respondent was given dowry articles valuing Rs.1,10,100 and those are in possession of the respondent. The suit was contested by filing the written statement by the respondent wherein the respondent contended that the dower amount was only fixed Rs.500 which was paid by the petitioner to the respondent whereas Rs.80,000 was fixed as compensation/penalty, if the petitioner divorced the respondent without any cause or contracted second marriage. As regards the dowry articles, the petitioner stated that no dowry articles were given to the respondent by her parents. The learned trial Court, out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, framed issues, recorded the evidence of the parties and finally respondent was held entitled to recover an amount of Rs.20,000 on account of the dowry articles whereas the claim of dower amount was dismissed. The respondent being disagreed with the judgment of the learned trial Court preferred an appeal, wherein the learned appellate Court while disposing of the appeal, set aside the findings of the learned trial Court regarding the dismissal of the claim of dower amount and the respondent was held entitled to recover the dower amount of Rs.80,000 whereas remaining decree passed by the learned trial Court was maintained, hence, this constitutional petition.

3. Learned count t for the petitioner contended that dower amount was fixed Rs.500 which was paid to the respondent at the spot whereas Rs.80,000 mentioned in the Nikahnama in column Nos.13 and 19 is in fact a penalty liable to be paid by the petitioner in case the petitioner divorced the respondent without any cause or contracted the second marriage. As regards the dowry articles, the learned counsel submitted that no dowry articles were given to the respondent at the time of marriage and in fact the respondent while leaving the house of the petitioner took away the valuables including the gold ornaments of the petitioner. Lastly contended that even otherwise the respondent could not succeed to prove her claims by adducing any impartial and confidence-inspiring evidence, therefore, the findings of the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court being result of mis-reading and non-reading of evidence, is not sustainable.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

5. The petitioner has not denied the execution of Nikahnama, dated 18-5-2007 and the entries incorporated therein. While perusing the contents of Nikahnama (Annexure-B), it is found that in column No.13, the dower amount is mentioned as Rs.80,000 whereas in Column No.14 the amount Rs.500 is mentioned, in Column No.15 it is mentioned that Rs.500 was paid at the time of marriage. In Column No.19, it is mentioned that in case of "talaq" without any cause to the respondent or contracting second marriage, the petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.80,

000. From the above terms and conditions agreed between the parties and that too were incorporated in the Nikahnama, it is crystal clear that the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.80,000 to the respondent on account of dower amount and the learned appellate Court rightly observed that the respondent is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.79,

500. As regards the entry in Column No. 19, the respondent may file a suit in the civil Court for the recovery of the same obviously, the respondent will have to prove the condition mentioned therein as the Family Court had no jurisdiction to entertain such like matters.

6. The learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court, as regards the dowry articles have already observed after perusing and appreciating the record, that the respondent is entitled to recover Rs.20,000 on account of the dowry articles. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any jurisdictional defect, legal infirmity, material irregularity, mis-reading and non-reading of evidence with the judgment and decree passed by the learned appellate Court, therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the learned appellate Court.

7. Resultantly, this petition has no force and is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. H.B.T./G-118/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.