2009 PLP 945 (MLD)

S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J.

Mst. Aneela Akhtar petitioner had filed three claims i.e. recovery of dowry articles valuing Rs.10,98,900, maintenance allowance and dower weighing 13-tolas gold ornaments on 7-2-2007. The learned Judge, Family Court, Gujranwala after taking written statement from Muhammad Irfan defendant/respondent No.1 put the parties on trial on the following issues:-- "Issues:-- (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for recovery of dowry articles Rs.10,98,900 in alternative thereof along with decree for recovery of dower in the shape of gold ornaments weighing 13 tolas along with decree for maintenance worth Rs.25,000 per month till the expiry of period of Iddat, as prayed for? OPP (2) Whether the plaintiff's suit is bad in view of sections 3 and 8 of the Dowry and Bridal Gifts Act, 1976? OPD (3) Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the instant suit? OPD (4) Relief."

2. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Judge, Family Court allowed the suit relating to recovery of dowry articles as per list Exh.D.6. as against dowry articles claimed as per list Exh.P.1. The suit relating to dower in shape of gold ornaments weighing 13 tolas was decreed in toto. The suit for recovery of maintenance was, however, dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff/petitioner was not performing matrimonial obligation.?????

3. Issues Nos. 2 and 3 were answered in the "negative". In other words, those decrees decided against the ea defendant/respondent No.1. The Judgments/decrees passed by the learned Gujranwala are, dated 30-6-2008.

4. The aforementioned judgments/decrees of the learned Judge, Family Court were challenged in appeal. Ch. Zafar Iqbal Naeem, Additional District Judge, Gujranwala vide his judgment/decree, dated 6-11-2008 partly allowed the same. The suit for recovery of maintenance allowance filed by the petitioner/plaintiff was decreed for the Iddat period at the rate of Rs.5,000 per month only and thus partly accepted the appeal. The appeal as to the remaining claim made therein was, however, dismissed.

5. It was mainly argued on behalf of the writ petitioner that she was entitled to decree of dowry articles according to the details given in the list Exh. P.

1. According to learned counsel, Exh.D.6 as produced by respondent No.1, could not be made basis of the judgment/decree impugned herein.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the petitioner/plaintiff appearing as P.W.1. had admitted during cross-examination that Exh.D.1. was an application for return of dowry articles which was filed with the Nazim of concerned Union Council. It was further argued that P.W.2. Muhammad Ali had also admitted the correctness of Exh.D.6.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

8. The legislature in its wisdom did not provide any further remedy against the judgment/decree passed by the appellate authority in the hierarchy of the Family Laws. The learned Additional District Judge was the superior Court of fact and the judgment and decree, dated 6-11-2008 rendered by him were based on evidence. No non-reading or misreading of the evidence or jurisdictional defect was pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner. Reappraisal of evidence in writ jurisdiction is not permissible unless miscarriage of justice is shown to have occasioned.

9. In the present case, I do not find any valid reason to interfere with the judgment/decree, dated 6-11-2008 passed by the learned Appellate Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

10. However, before parting with this judgment, I note with grave concern that Mr. Nadeem Anwar Chaudhary, learned Judge Family Court, Gujranwala while recording his judgment, dated 30-6-2008 dealt with the matters before him in a worst confounded manner. While granting relit f, he did not state as to what was the claim which was being decreed and as to what was the relief which was refused. Similarly, the decree-sheet issued by him, was quite enigmatic. In any case, since the judgment/decree, dated 30-6-2008 passed by him stood merged in the appellate judgment/decree, I avoid sending the matter back to him for re-writing the judgment and drawing a decree in accordance with law. The High Court would not allow a situation which might result in stalemate. It is the decree (and not judgment) which is appealabe. I am told that Mr. Nadeem Anwar Chaudhary, is a Civil Judge enjoying First Class powers. By now, he is supposed to know as to how the relief granted is to be expressed at the conclusion of the judgment and what should be the decree to follow the same. The decree must show determination of the rights of the parties conclusively.

11. A copy of this judgment is directed to be sent to Mr. Nadeem Anwar Chaudhary, Civil Judge Ist-Class wherever he is posted, through the learned District and Sessions Judge concerned, for his future guidance. H.B.T./A-104/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.