2010 PLP 1407 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD ASHRAF BHATTI, J.

Facts gathered from the available record reveal that Mst. Gulshan Suria, petitioner along with her minor daughter, namely, Haya filed a suit for recovery of maintenance for herself and minor daughter at the rate of Rs.5000 p.m. each, delivery expenses to the tune of Rs.20000 incurred on the birth of the said minor as well as Rs.19000 allegedly received by Shahzad Noor, respondent No.3 (her husband) at the time of marriage as `Salami'. Besides this, the petitioner also alleged for the recovery of gold ornaments weighing 5 tolas as mentioned in Column No.17 of Nikah Nama from respondent No.3.

2. Respondent No.3 filed his written statement, necessary issued were framed and after having heard both the parties the learned Judge, Family Court passed a decree for recovery of maintenance at the rate of Rs.3500 p.m. w.e.f. 2-6-2007 to 21-7-2008 (including Iddat period) to the extent of petitioner No.1 whereas Rs.3000 p.m. with 12% annual increase in favour of the minor Haya.

3. Along with the above, the learned Judge, Family Court also held entitled petitioner No.1 to recover Rs.20000 as delivery expense as well as five tolas gold ornaments as dower or its price according to the market value from respondent No.3 vide judgment and decree dated 15-1-2009.

4. Being aggrieved by that judgment and decree respondent No.3 filed appeal, which was partly allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozewala vide judgment and decree dated 30-3-2009 whereby the maintenance allowance of the petitioners was upheld. As regards the recovery of dower and five tolas gold ornaments it was held that petitioner No.1 would be entitled to recover Rs.10000 instead of Rs.20000 on account of delivery expense and Rs.1000 for the recovery of dower in lieu of the gold ornaments as alleged by the petitioner No.1.

5. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned appellate Court the petitioners have preferred this writ petition mainly on the grounds that the petitioners' case was not properly appreciated inasmuch as that no order was passed for return of Rs.19000 the amount of `Salami' taken by respondent No.3 from petitioner No.1 on their marriage and that the learned appellate Court reduced the amount of delivery expenses from Rs.20000 to Rs.10000 without any cogent reason nor had any authority to reverse the findings of the learned trial Court with regard to the recovery of five tolas gold ornaments reflecting in Column No.1'7 of the Nikah Nama.

6. Perusal of the record indicates that the allegation of petitioner No.1 to the extent of Rs.19000 has been sufficiently rebutted by respondent No.3 in his statement as D.W.1. The only witness produced by petitioner No.1 i.e. Abdul Rehman, P.W.2 did not utter a single word about the amount of `Salami'. So, therefore, there is no reason to disagree with the findings of the learned appellate Court in this regard.

7. As far as the reduction of the delivery expense is concerned, admittedly the only piece of evidence produced on behalf of petitioner No.1 was a bill issued by Malik Surgical Hospital and Shazia Maternity Home, Lahore, available on record which was not meant for production to Court for the reasons best known to the management of the hospital. No one from the said hospital was summoned to clarify the said bill. Yet respondent No.3 was honest and straight forward to accept the suggestion put to him that Rs.20000 were spent as maternity charges but in the same breath he also said that this amount was paid by him. I also tend to believe him in view of his straight and honest statement given at the trial. He has already returned the dowry articles to petitioner No.1 without putting any hassle and even did not file appeal against the fixation of reasonable amount of maintenance allowance, as mentioned above, which shows his bona fide to pay what was reasonably due against him. Yet the learned appellate Court awarded Rs.10000 as delivery expenses in favour of petitioner No.1.

8. He also refuted the allegation that four tolas of gold ornaments belonging to petitioner No.1 were lying with him. His denial appears to be based on reality because in our society a woman would never like to part with her personal belonging like gold ornaments meant for frequent use and that too of such meagre weight. As far as the entry with regard to five tolas of gold ornaments against Column No.17 of the Nikah Nama is concerned ordinary interpretation of the words does not give impression that it was as promise on the part of respondent No.3 to return the said gold ornaments after the marriage if demanded by her. On the other hand, the only meanings that can be given to the said condition of 5 tolas of gold ornaments is that it presupposed that the same were already lying with petitioner No.1. So, therefore, the findings of the learned appellate are quite in line with the facts of the case after proper appreciation of parties' evidence, making out no case for this Court to interfere in its Constitutional jurisdiction.

9. Finding no substance, this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed in limine. H.B.T./G-54/L Petition dismissed.