2011 PLP 1471 (CLC)

MAMOON RASHID SHEIKH, J.

The suits of the petitioner, one regarding the recovery of dowry and the other for recovery of maintenance (for self and the minor daughter of the parties) and delivery charges, were decreed by the learned Judge Family Court, Bhakkar through the consolidated judgment and decrees dated 9-10-2008. The petitioner was, therefore, held entitled to recover. Rs.30,000/- in lieu of dowry and maintenance at the rate of Rs.600/- per month from January, 2007 till July, 2008 whereas the minor was held entitled to recover maintenance at the rate of Rs.600/- per month with 10 per cent annual increase from January, 2007 till her marriage; the claim of the petitioner for recovery of delivery charges was, however, declined. Feeling aggrieved respondent No.1 filed an appeal which was partially allowed by the learned District Judge, Bhakkar through the judgment and decree dated 3-2-2009 with the result that whilst allowing the petitioner and the minor the maintenance awarded to them the learned appellate Court below dismissed the petitioner's claim for recovery of dowry.

2. At the outset the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has instructions to only assail the impugned judgment and decree dated 3-2-2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Bhakkar to the extent of dismissal of the petitioner's claim for recovery of dowry.

3. The short point of law involved in this petition is the question whether in view of the provisions of Clauses (b) & (c) of subsection (2) of section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1964, the learned appellate Court below was justified in entertaining and adjudicating upon respondent No.1's appeal and thereby reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Judge Family Court to the extent of the petitioner's claim for recovery of dowry.

4. The relevant provisions of section 14 of the Act, ibid, are being reproduced hereunder for ease of reference:

"14. (1) Notwithstanding anything provided in any other law for the time being in forces, a decision given or a decree passed by a Family Court shall be appealable. ? ??????????? (a) ?????????????????????. ??????????? (b) ?????????????????????. ??????????? (2) No appeal shall lie from a decree passed by a Family Court. ??????????? ??????????? (a) ?????????????????????. (b) for dower or dowry not exceeding rupees thirty thousand. (c) for maintenance of rupees one thousand or less per month. ??????????? (3) ?????????????????????. ? ??????????? (4) ?????????????????????.

5. The learned counsel for respondent No.1/defendant when confronted with the above provisions of section 14 of the Act, ibid, could not justify as to how respondent No.1/defendant's appeal was competent given the fact that under the said provisions no appeal lies from a decree passed by a Family Court for recovery of dowry not exceeding Rs.30,000/- and for recovery of maintenance of Rs. 1000/- or less per month, which is the position in the instant case.

6. It seems that the learned appellate Court below lost sight of the provisions of section 14 of the Act, ibid. The impugned judgment and decree of the learned appellate Court below is regrettably against the express provisions of the statute. The decree of the learned appellate Court below was, therefore, passed in excess of jurisdiction and without lawful authority and is liable to be declared as such.

7. In the result this petition is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree dated 3-2-2009 of the learned District Judge, Bhakkar is set aside and the judgment and decree dated 9-10-2008 of the learned Judge Family Court, Bhakkar is upheld. M.H./S-92/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.