2003 PLP 3199 (YLR)
Mst. SHAMIM AKHTAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, BAHAWALNAGAR and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 3199 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Rustam Ali Malik, J |
| Parties | Mst. SHAMIM AKHTAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, BAHAWALNAGAR and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 3199 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 3199 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Rustam Ali Malik, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 3199 (YLR) (Mst. SHAMIM AKHTAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, BAHAWALNAGAR and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Afzal Pansota for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Afzal Khokhar for Respondent No.3.
- Date of hearing: 29th July, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 5‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑ Apprecia tion of evidence‑‑‑Dowry articles, recovery of‑‑‑Disputed question of fact‑‑‑Concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below‑‑‑Suit as well as appeal filed by wife were dismissed by Family Court and Appellate Court respectively‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑While exercising Constitutional jurisdiction, it was not possible to undertake an extensive appraisal of evidence produced by parties so as to find out that the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below were the result of any non reading or misreading of evidence‑‑‑Both the Courts below had taken into consideration the statements of witnesses of the parties and had delivered judgments after attending to the evidence existing on record‑‑‑High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction did not find any justification to, declare the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below as illegal or without lawful authority‑‑‑Petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Afzal Pansota for Petitioner. Muhammad Afzal Khokhar for Respondent No.3. Date of hearing: 29th July, 2002. This writ petition has been filed on behalf of Mst. Shamim Akhtar petitioner on the ground that the judgments and decrees dated 24‑2‑1999 and 18‑1‑2000 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Haroonabad and the learned District Judge, Bahawalnagar are illegal and are the result of non‑reading and misreading of the evidence and as such the same are liable to be set aside.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of the learned Judge Family Court, Haroonabad for the recovery of dowry of the value of Rs.75,000, against respondent No.3, on the plea that at the time of marriage with the aforesaid respondent, her parents had given her dowry of the value of Rs.75,000 and which she had taken to the house of respondent No.3 and which was still lying there. She obtained divorce through Court on 21‑11‑1997 from respondent No.3 but her former husband i.e. respondent No.3 refused to return her dowry articles. He contested the suit filed by her. After the trial, the learned Judge, Family Court, dismissed her suit vide his judgment and decree dated 24‑2‑1999. Aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment and decree the petitioner filed an appeal in the Court of the learned District Judge, Bahawalnagar. However, the same was also dismissed on 18‑1‑2000. Hence this writ petition.
3. Arguments have been heard and record perused:
4. The judgment of the learned District Judge, Bahawalnagar dated 18‑1‑2000 and also the judgment of the learned Judge Family Court, Haroonabad dated 24‑2‑1999, copies of which are appended with the writ petition, indicate that both the Courts below had taken into consideration the evidence of the parties which had been recorded during the trial. There is no force in the argument that the judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below were result of non‑reading or misreading of the evidence. Even otherwise, while exercising the writ jurisdiction, it is not possible to undertake an extensive appraisal of the evidence produced by the parties so as to find out that the impugned judgments and decrees are the result of any non‑reading or misreading of evidence. Evidently, the learned trial Court as well as the learned First Appellate Court had taken into consideration the statements of the witnesses of the petitioner as well as of respondent No.3 and had delivered the judgments after attending to the evidence existing on record. Consequently there is no justification to declare that the impugned judgments and decrees dated 24‑2‑1999 and 18‑1‑2000 passed by the learned Courts below are illegal or without lawful authority.
5. The writ petition is clearly without any lawful basis and same is accordingly dismissed. M.H./S‑708/L Petition dismissed.