1995 PLP 1149 (MLD)

Through this civil revision, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and decree dated 31‑3‑1903 whereby while accepting the appeal of respondent/ plaintiff, the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar decreed the suit to the extent of Rs. 20,000 as dowery amount to be paid by the petitioner/defendant.

2. The facts giving arise to the above noted petition briefly stated are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 24,500 as value of the dowery articles against the petitioner/defendant alleging therein that the articles mentioned in para. 3 of the plaint were given to her by her parents and the petitioner/defendant deprived her of the said articles and threw her out of the house. Pursuant to submission of written statement by the petitioner/defendant, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court. (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of dowery, as prayed for? OPP. (2) Relief. Both the issues were decided against the respondent/plaintiff and the suit was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge‑II, Bahawalnagar set aside the judgment of the learned trial Court and decreed the suit on following grounds: (i) that the respondent/plaintiff had specifically pointed out each and every article which was given to her at the time of her marriage by her parents in dower. Her claim was supported by P.Ws. 2 and 3 who being close relations were the best witnesses. (ii) that during the course of pendency of this appeal the plaintiff/wife had made an offer that the matter may be decided on oath on Holy Quran. She had suggested the names of Muhammad Amir, Muhammad Rafiq, Muhammad Ashiq and Hafiz Noor Nabi, the real uncles of petitioner/defendant for the oath. She said that if any one of them takes an oath on Holy Quran that the articles mentioned in the plaint were not given in dowery, her appeal may be dismissed. By this offer was not accepted by the petitioner/defendant. Hence the presumption would go against him.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the evidence with their assistance.

4. The case of the respondent/plaintiff was supported by P. W.2 Muhammad Sharif and P. W. 3 Iyaz Ahmad. Both the witnesses have specifically named the articles which were given in dowery and they have also worked out the value of the said articles to be Rs. 24,

500. They stated that the respondent/plaintiff had been divorced but the dowery articles had not been returned despite a demand having been made by the plaintiff/wife. The credibility of these witnesses could not be shaken despite the cross‑examination to which they were subjected. The only ground which found favour with the trial Court to disbelieve them was that they are close relatives of the plaintiff/wife and they had not purchased the articles in question themselves. I am afraid, this could not form a valid basis to discredit the witnesses whose testimony inspire confidence. Near relatives are the best witnesses to depose as to what articles were given in dower. Merely because they did not purchase those articles, would not show that they were not witnesses of the articles being passed out to the respondent/plaintiff at the time of marriage.

5. Even otherwise, the respondent/plaintiff has already been divorced and there is nothing on record to show that she received any benefit during the subsistence of marriage. It would be rather cruel to deny her articles given by her parents at the time of marriage in her dowery. Their approximate value has rightly been determined by the learned Additional District Judge.

6. The petitioner has failed to point out any jurisdictional defect or irregularity in the order of the learned appellate Court to justify interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Provision of section 115, C.P.C. are discretionary and can only be invoked if the irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction has led to injustice or hardship. No irregularity or injustice is manifest on record to justify interference.

7. For what has been discussed above, this revision has no merit which is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. H.B.T./N‑306/L Revision dismissed.