2016 PLP 668 (MLD)

KHALID MAHMOOD MALIK, J.

Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgments and decrees dated 04.12.2013 and 25.08.2014 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Rahimyar Khan/respondent No.2 and the learned Additional District Judge, Rahimyar Khan/respondent No.1, whereby the suit of the plaintiff/respondent No.3 for dissolution of marriage, recovery of maintenance allowance and for recovery of dowry articles were decreed in her favour and against the petitioner.

2. The facts of the case are that respondent No.3 filed a suit for dissolution of marriage, for recovery of dowry articles and for recovery of maintenance allowance. The suits were contested by the petitioner by filing written statement. During pre-trial reconciliation proceedings, the learned Judge Family Court, decreed the suit of the plaintiff to the extent of dissolution of marriage under section 10(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1964 and the plaintiff was bound to return the dower, which was returned to the petitioner in shape of 4 tola gold ornaments vide order dated 14.11.2012. To resolve the remaining controversy between the parties, the learned Judge/respondent No.2 framed the relevant issues and after observing legal formalities, decreed the suit of respondent No.3 by holding that respondent No.3 is entitled to recover maintenance allowance only for her Iddat period at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month and suit for recovery of dowry articles was decreed to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- as alternate price of the dowry articles.

3. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Rahimyar Khan/respondent No.1, which was decided vide impugned judgment and decree dated 25.08.2014. The learned lower appellate Court modified the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2013 with the observation that respondent No.3 is entitled for recovery of Rs.3,000/- per month instead of Rs.5,000/- per month from the petitioner as maintenance allowance for Iddat period only.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned judgments and decrees are against law, facts of the case and are result of mis-reading and non-reading of the material available on record; that both the learned Courts below have not properly appreciated the facts of the case and relevant law on the subject; that marriage of the parties was solemnized on 11.01.2003; that no such dowry articles, as claimed by respondent No.3 in her plaint, were given by her parents; that some dowry articles were given to her which are lying in the house of the petitioner and he is ready to return the same. Further submits that respondent No.3 failed to produce any shop keeper and receipts of the dowry articles during evidence in support of her assertion regarding dowry articles.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. It is a settled principle of law that purpose of enacting the special law regarding family disputes is to advance justice and to avoid technicalities, which are hindrance in providing ultimate justice to the parties. The West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 was promulgated for the expeditious settlement and disposal of disputes relating to the marriages and other family affairs and special procedure was provided to achieve this object. The purpose of enacting Family Courts Act, 1964 is to frustrate the technicalities for the purpose of justice between the parties in the shortest possible time. The provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 as well as Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 are not applicable in stricto-sensu to the proceedings before the Family Court by virtue of Family Courts Act, 1964.

7. As the evidence adduced before the Family Court cannot be evaluated and appraised in the manner as it is appreciated in the cases presented under Civil Procedure Code, 1908. A mere fact that a party did not formally prove a document is of no legal consequence. The reference may be made on the case law reported as "Mst. Shakeela Bibi v. Muhammad Israr and others" (2012 MLD 756), wherein it has been held that "the stance of husband's side that bride while making claim of dowry articles, is required to prove the case, in requirement of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, as held by learned trial Court, not only misconceived, but besides the mandate of law as envisaged in Section 17(1) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964."

8. In our society parents used to give dowry articles to their daughters as per their status. It is not possible for any bride/wife to keep the record of purchase receipts, prepare the list of dowry articles, and obtained signatures from bridegroom/husband side. The claims of dowry articles are ordinarily given to a bride at the time of her marriage. Both the below courts have given concurrent of facts qua the value of dowry articles. The learned appellate court after appreciating of facts and evidence rightly modified the decree to the extent of maintenance for Iddat period Rs.3000/- per month instead of Rs.5000/-.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality, material irregularity, non-reading and misreading in the findings of both the courts below calling for interference through the instant writ petition.

10. For what has been discussed above, this petition stands dismissed in limine. ZC/S-143/L Petition dismissed.