2016 PLP 176 (YLRN)

KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.

Through this petition, under Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner Nazir Ahmed has called in question the judgment dated 25.04.2015, passed by the learned Court of Ist Additional District Judge, Khairpur in Family Appeal No. 24/2013 re-Nazir Ahmed v. Mst. Nagma, maintaining the judgment and decree dated 07.01.2013, passed by the learned Court of Family Judge, Khairpur in Family Suit No.75/2012 re-Mst. Nagma v. Nazir Ahmed, decreeing the suit of the respondent No.1, directing the defendant/petitioner to return the dowry articles to the petitioner or to pay Rs.40,000/-(Rupees Forty thousands) in alternate as value of those articles against the claim of the respondent No.1 for Rs.80,000/=.

2. Briefly, the facts giving rise to this petition are that the marriage of the respondent No.1 Mst. Nagma was solemnized with the petitioner Nazir Ahmad about three years prior to filing of the aforesaid Family Suit and the respondent No.1 remained with the petitioner as his dutiful wife; that from this wedlock the parties had no issue; that at the time of marriage respondent No.1 was given dowry articles viz. one large Iron trunk, one small Iron box, cot, beddings, rillies, quilt, bed sheets, 15 pairs of unstitched clothes, cash amount of Rs.5000/-and other articles including makeup electric Iron, house hold utensils etc all worth of Rs.80,000/- by her parents, which she had taken to the house of her husband, the petitioner; that afterwards their arose dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 and as a result thereof the petitioner after giving severe beatings to the respondent No.1, had driven her out from his house in three clothes, that due to such dispute, the respondent No.1 filed suit for dissolution of her marriage with the petitioner, which was decreed by the learned Family Court Khairpur; that the respondent No.1 made efforts through nek mards for return of her dowry articles which are lying in the house of the petitioner, but her all efforts yielded no fruits, hence she filed a suit being Family Suit No.75/2012 for recovery of dowry articles, which was decreed by the learned Court of Family Judge, Khairpur vide judgment and decree dated 15.01.2013 with the directions to the petitioner/ defendant to return the dowry articles viz. one large Iron trunk, one small Iron trunk, 15 suits and three rillies or to pay Rs.40,000/-in alternate as value of these articles to the respondent No.1/plaintiff.

3. Having felt dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 07.01.2013, passed by the learned Family Court Khairpur, the petitioner filed Family Appeal No.24/2013 re-Nazir Ahmad v. Mst. Nagma before the learned Court of District Judge, Khairpur, which was ultimately dismissed by the learned Court of Ist. Additional District Judge, Khairpur vide impugned judgment and decree dated 25.04.2014, whereby the judgment and decree, passed by the learned Court of Family Judge Khairpur were maintained, hence this petition.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner has contended that the clothes, rillies and other articles etc were used by the respondent No.1 during her stay with the petitioner in his house and there remains only large Iron truck and small Iron truck lying in the house of the petitioner and value thereof is Rs.20,000/-, but the learned Family Court has decreed the suit with the directions to the petitioner to return the aforesaid articles or in alternate pay the amount of Rs.40,000/-being the value of the said articles and he went on to contend that he does not dispute the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below to the extent of aforesaid large Iron truck and small Iron truck he, therefore, prays that the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below may be modified from Rs.40,000/- into Rs.20,000/-

5. Learned A.A.G, while supporting the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below, has contended that the same are well reasoned judgments and have been passed after appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties and that there are concurrent findings of both the learned Courts below and there is no illegality therein.

6. On 11.12.2015 the respondent No.1 and the learned Advocate for the respondent No.1 were absent despite intimation notice and so also the name of learned Advocate for the respondent No.1 had appeared in the daily cause list. Earlier also on the last three dates viz. 14.09.2015, 21.09.2015 and 25.11.2015 no one was present for the respondent No.1.

7. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner and learned A.A.G and have also gone through the material available on record.

8. Admittedly, the aforesaid dowry articles were given to the respondent No.1 Mst. Nagma by her parents at the time of her marriage, which she had taken to the house of her husband, the petitioner. It is also an admitted position that the house hold articles were not returned to the respondent No.1. The contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner that the cloths, rillies and other articles etc were used during the stay of the respondent No.1 in his house is not supported by any evidence. There is also no evidence about returning the dowry articles to the respondent No.1 by the petitioner.

9. The learned Family Court after conclusion of the trial and appreciating the evidence on record at length came to the conclusion that the respondent No.1/plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Dowry articles viz one large Iron Trunk, one small Iron Trunk, 15 suits and three rillies and thereby directing the petitioner/defendant to return those articles to the plaintiff/respondent No.1 or to pay Rs.40,000/= in the alternate as value of the said articles keeping in view the depreciation of value of the said articles due to passage of time. The learned appellate Court i.e the Court of learned Ist. Additional District Judge, Khairpur after reappraisal of the evidence has dismissed the Family Appeal No.24/2013 filed by the petitioner, holding that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the impugned judgment and decree, passed by the learned trial Court which is sound and requires no interference.

10. In view of what has been discussed above I find that both the learned Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence on record and applied their judicious mind while passing the impugned judgments and decrees, which are based on sound reasons. It was not asserted at the time of arguments that the impugned judgments and decrees are without lawful authority or the same, in any way, are without any legal effect, I, therefore, do not find any valid reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the facts rendered by the learned Courts below in exercise of Constitutional Jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly the petition being devoid of merits is dismissed with no order as to costs. C.M.A No.6036/2014 having become infructuous is dismissed as such. ZC/N-16/Sindh Petition dismissed.