2009 PLP 1132 (CLC)

PERVAIZ INAYAT MALIK, J.

Mst. Yasmin Tahira respondent No.2 was married to the petitioner in accordance with Islamic rites on 27-1-2005, whereafter she started performing marital obligations by residing in his house. Out of this wedlock a minor aged about two years Aysha respondent No.3 was born, who is in the custody of respondent No.2. Unfortunately marriage however, stood dissolved on 20-9-2008. The respondents Nos.2 and 3 filed a suit for the recovery of maintenance, dower as well as articles of dowry before the learned Family Judge Mian Channu, which was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 27-10-2008, which has been assailed through this Constitutional petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that since against dowry articles no appeal was provided, therefore, this Constitutional petition is maintainable and the judgment and decree relating to dowry and maintenance, in spite of the fact that appeal is provided can be taken care of by this Court. On merits he very frankly conceded that decree so far as it relates to grant of maintenance and the dower was justified, however he vehemently objects to the decree so far as it relates to the articles of dowry. He contends that the parents of the respondent No.2 were so poor; that they were not in a position to give any articles of dowry and that the suit against him was frivolous and false. He prays, therefore, that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Court may be set aside to the extent of articles of dowry.

3. Conversely Mr. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal Chaudhry, the learned counsel for the respondents Nos.2 and 3 submits that contesting respondent is a woman and throughout has faced agony of protracted litigation along with daughter and that the petitioner has not paid single penny to her as maintenance nor has paid dowry amount. The learned counsel for the respondents has drawn my attention to the evidence of the parties and submitted that although opportunity of cross-examination was given to the petitioner but he failed to cross examine any of the P.Ws, therefore, the testimony thereof remained unrebutted. The learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance upon Muhammad Yasin v. Mst. Rafia Bibi alias Rafia Sultana and another PLD 1983 Lah.377, M. Javed Iqbal v. Mst. Tahira Naveed 2002 CLC 1748, Mujahid Hussain Shah v. K.S.B. Pumps Company Ltd. and 2 others PLD 1996 SC

787. The respondent No.1 appeared as P.W.1. She has categorically stated that she brought articles of dowry of worth of Rs.1,93,

950. She has also categorically stated that the petitioner earns Rs.25,000 and can pay Rs.3,000 per month as maintenance allowance. The statement of respondent No.2 is supported by the statement of P.W.2. In the absence of cross-examination the statements of P.Ws have to be admitted as correct.

4. For the foregoing reasons I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned judgment and decree, which otherwise, I find well reasoned and perfectly in accordance with facts and law applicable to the case. This writ petition, therefore, being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed with costs. H.B;T./M-247/L Petition dismissed.