2010 PLP 1420 (MLD)

MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J.

Through this constitution petition the petitioner has challenged the legality of judgment and decree dated 9-7-2008 and 24-4-2008 passed by Family Court and learned appellate Court.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent No.3 were married according to Islamic Sharia. The partiers started to reside as husband and wife, but after 2 years their relations became strained. According to petitioner, respondent No.3 started to beat her, however, a child was born out of the wedlock and his birth expenses were borne by the parents of the petitioner amounting to Rs.20,000 and ultimately the petitioner filed a suit for recovery of dowry, as per list annexed with the plaint. There are number of allegations against the petitioner, but these are not relevant for the disposal of this petition. The learned trial Court framed the following issues:-- "ISSUES (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for dissolution of marriage as prayed for? OPP (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for recovery of dowry articles as per list affixed with the plaint or in alternative Rs.3,36,500 as price thereof? OPP (3a) Relief."

3. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the learned family Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 24-4-2008. The petitioner assailed said judgment and decree through an appeal, which too was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 9.7-2008, hence, this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the evidence produced by the petitioner it has been proved that the dowry articles were given by the parents of the petitioner to her at the time of her `Rukhsatti', whereas the argument of learned counsel for the respondent is that it is proved on record that it was second marriage of the petitioner and her parents had not given any dowry articles. Learned counsel for the parties have read the entire evidence produced. The main witness is the father of the petitioner who appeared as P.W.2. He admits in his cross-examination that he has not given any dowry article to the petitioner at the time of her first marriage. He has not affixed any thumb-impression on the list of dowry articles. The prices of dowry articles were written by his counsel. He is not aware when the list of dowry articles were prepared. He further admits that he is not aware what prices are mentioned in the list. He also showed his inability about the quantum of dowry articles. No witness was produced in whose presence dowry articles were handed over to the respondent or his family. The petitioner's father himself admits that he has not given any dowry articles at the time of first marriage of her daughter, the inference is that at the time of second marriage no articles were given to the petitioner. Both the learned courts below have properly and minutely scanned the evidence produced by the parties and they are unanimous on the point that no dowry articles were given to the petitioner.

5. In view of above, I feel not necessary to interfere in the concurrent findings of facts of two courts below who alone are competent to give findings of fact.

6. In constitutional petition no factual controversy can be ascertained nor in constitutional jurisdiction this court can interfere in the concurrent findings of facts unless there is some jurisdictional defect is shown. The petitioner has failed to point out any jurisdictional defect in the judgments of two courts below, hence, this petition is dismissed. H.B.T/R-30/L Petition dismissed.