2008 PLP 1715 (CLC)

MAZHAR HUSSAIN MINHAS, J.

Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner has called in question the judgment and decree, dated 13-2-2007 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Chichawatni, whereby suit for recovery of dowry articles and maintenance allowance has been decreed in favour of respondent No. 1 and judgment and decree, dated 26-10-2007, whereby petitioner's appeal has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 was married with the petitioner on 18-7-2005 in lieu of dower amount of Rs.500. At the time of marriage, she was given dowry articles detailed in the plaint valuing Rs.2,71,800, by her parents which are lying in the house of petitioner. After a period of three months of their marriage, respondent No.1 was maltreated and ousted from his house by the petitioner and on 5-12.2005 was divorced. Therefore, she claimed the dowry articles or their price and maintenance for a period of five months including Iddat at the rate of Rs.10,000 per month.

3. The suit was contested by the petitioner through written statement. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: (1) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file this suit? OPD (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of dowry articles? OPP (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of maintenance allowance. If, so at what rate and for what period? OPP (4) Relief. 5. (sic) Both the parties adduced their respective evidence on the above issues. After hearing the arguments of both the sides and going through the record, learned trial Court partly decreed the suit. The value of dowry articles was assessed by the learned trial Court as Rs.1,70,000 while maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.1,000 per month for the period of Iddat only was decreed. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, the petitioner filed appeal but the same was dismissed. Hence, the judgments and decrees passed by the learned trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court have been assailed through this writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that according to own version of respondent No.1, the list of articles given in dowry was prepared, but the same has not been produced. Similarly, any receipt regarding purchase of articles has not been tendered in evidence. It has been further contended that on the day of marriage, Abdul Rasheed (P.W.2) according to his own version was busy in construction work at Kassowal and did not participate in the marriage ceremony. Therefore, his evidence has no relevance.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has controverted the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and has supported the impugned judgments and decrees.

8. Arguments of learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record perused. As regards the list of dowry articles, the complete detail of articles has been given in the plaint and while appearing as P.W. also respondent No.1 has described each and every item. Therefore, there was no need to tender in evidence any separate list of the dowry articles. Abdul Rasheed (P.W.2) has also supported her version and has stated that she was given dowry valuing about Rs.2,75,

000. He has got recorded in cross-examination that he is a contractor and was getting a shop constructed through a mason at Kassowal. He has categorically stated that he was present there when the marriage party arrived. Thus, the version of respondent No.1 about dowry is fully proved from the' evidence of record. It may also be mentioned that during the course of arguments, the petitioner has made an offer that he is ready to return some of the articles of dowry lying in his house, but his offer has not been accepted by mother of respondent No.1, present in Court. She has stated that the petitioner has further given valuable articles to his sister in dowry. This offer made by the petitioner is sufficient to negate his plea that dowry articles were not given to respondent No.1 on the eve of their marriage. As regards the value of articles assessed by the learned trial Court, I endorse views of learned trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court that due to wear and tear the value of articles has been diminished.

9. There is no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below warranting interference of this Court. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed having no merits. H.B.T./T-24/L Petition dismissed.