P L D 2006 Lahore 16 (PLP)

MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.

The respondent No. 1, after the dissolution of her marriage with the petitioner, which occurred on 20-2-2003, bought the suit for the recovery of dowry articles, mentioned in the list attached to the plaint. or in the alternate the value thereof amounting to Rs.2,00,185; the suit was contested by the petitioner; issues were framed; parties were put to trial; they led their respective evidence and on the conclusion, the learned Judge Family Court vide judgment and decree dated 24-1-2004, allowed the suit to the extent of only Rs.90,000; the learned Judge Family Court, disbelieved the version of the defendant that the entire articles of dowry have been returned to the plaintiff at the time of the dissolution of the marriage. Being dissatisfied, both the parties filed appeals, but the result remains the same.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the provisions of section 10 of the Family Courts Act, 1964, there are two stages, where the Court in the cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Family Courts has to make efforts for the reconciliation i.e. one at the pre-trial and the other at the post trial, but in this case, as this opportunity has not been provided and the mandatory procedure has not been followed, the trial stands vitiated, therefore, the judgments and decrees are nullity in the eyes of law. He further submits that both the Courts below have misread the evidence on the record and for erroneous and assumptuous reasons, the learned Courts have disbelieved the version of the petitioner that the articles of dowry were returned, when the marriage stood dissolved.

3. Heard. As regards the first plea is concerned, suffice it to say that the concept of reconciliation obviously is relatable to the cases, where the matter in issue is about the divorce between the parties; it may have some kind of nexus where the demand is about dower recovery, but when the marriage between the parties has finally terminated; for the suit regarding the recovery of dowry, there remains no concept for reconciliation; the true interpretation and application of section 10 of the Act ibid, therefore is only confined to the matter of the above nature, but undoubtedly, has no relevance where the marriage has already dissolved, resultantly this argument of the petitioner's counsel has no force and is hereby repelled.

4. As regards the question about the misreading and non reading of the evidence is concerned, it is settled law that the two Courts below being Courts of fact have the right, authority and the prerogative to resolve the factual controversy between the parties; obviously, this domain extends to the appreciation and the consideration of the evidence led by the parties; both the Courts have done their job in accordance with law and I do not find any amiss of misreading and non-reading, which could have any reflection upon their decision; this argument too has no force. In the light of above, I do not find this to be an appropriate case for interference in my Constitutional jurisdiction. This petition thus has no merits and the same is hereby dismissed. M.A.W./M-1364/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.