2011 PLP 599 (MLD)

RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J.

The petitioner has assailed the judgment and decree dated 9-9-2005 passed by learned ADJ, Bhalwal, District Sargodha, whereby an appeal filed by respondent No.3 against the judgment and decree dated 13-5-2005 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhalwal, was accepted and consequently the suit for recovery of articles of dowry filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of articles of dowry as per list annexed with the plaint as Annexure-A or a sum of Rs.1,06,900 in lieu thereof. It was stated that at the time of her marriage, her parents gave her dowry as per list Annexure-A and she took the same to the house of the defendant/respondent No.3 and performed her martial obligations. She alleged that the defendant/ respondent treated her with cruelty and turned out of the house on 21-12-2003 in three worn clothes while she was pregnant and also kept the articles of dowry in his house. Subsequently she filed suit for dissolution of marriage and maintenance. All these suits were decided together by the learned Judge Family Court. The learned Judge Family Court passed a decree for recovery of the articles of dowry or a sum of Rs.90,000 in lieu thereof. The suit for maintenance was dismissed. However, it was held that she was entitled to get maintenance only for the period of Iddat at the rate of Rs.2,000 per month plus Rs.25,000 as maternity charges. The minor daughter of the parties was also held entitled to the maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000 per month. The learned ADJ maintained the decree to the extent of maintenance and delivery charges. However, reversed the findings of the learned trial Court regarding recovery of articles of dowry and dismissed the suit of the petitioner.

3. The petitioner has assailed the judgment, inter alia, on the ground that the learned ADJ erred due to misreading and non-reading of material evidence and has also pleadings of the parties.

4. The writ petition was fixed for arguments for today and the name of the learned counsel for the parties were duly reflected in the cause list but no one appeared on behalf of respondent No.3 whole the day long.

5. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record minutely.

6. The petitioner/plaintiff appeared as P.W. and stated that her parents gave her articles of dowry worth Rs.1,07,000 as per (Exh.P.1). It is stated that the list was prepared on the day of marriage and one copy was delivered to the petitioner and other was retained by her father. Bashir Ahmad father of the petitioner appeared as P.W.2 and stated that he gave articles of dowry as per list (Exh.P.1), which is in the house of the defendant/respondent No.3. Father of the petitioner was a Supervisor in the Textile Mills and then after leaving the service was running the business. She has four brothers as admitted by the defendant/respondent and one of them is living abroad. He could not deny that her other brother is a contractor. Admittedly, as also held by the learned courts below, a sum of Rs.25,000 was spent by the father of the petitioner at the time of the birth of the daughter of the parties. This shows that the father of the petitioner has sufficient means. In our society the people of middle class do give dowry to their daughters at the time of weddings. The petitioner had categorically stated that two copies of the list were prepared, one of which was given to the defendant/respondent and the other was kept by her father. The learned ADJ held that the primary evidence was not produced and for this reason disbelieved the contention of the petitioner. If more than one copies are prepared and all are signed then every copy thereof is the primary evidence. Moreover the technicalities of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 and C.P.C. are not applicable on the proceedings before the learned Judge Family Court. The contention of the defendant/respondent that no dowry was given cannot be accepted. He has not given any detail so the detail furnished by the petitioner as contained in the list (Exh.P.1) appears to be correct. The learned trial Court appreciated the evidence properly and after deducting depreciation decreed the suit for recovery of articles of dowry or a sum of Rs.90,000 in lieu thereof. The learned ADJ erred in reversing these well reasoned findings. The judgment passed by the learned ADJ is not sustainable for the above-mentioned reasons as he gas erred due to non-reading of the reliable evidence.

7. For the reasons supra, the writ petition is accepted and the impugned judgment and decree dated 9-9-2005 passed by the learned ADJ are set aside. Consequently the judgment and decree, dated 13-5-2005 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Bhalwal, are restored. M.U.Y./N-1/L Judgment and decree restored.