2001 PLP 1544 (YLR)

This petition for leave to appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Shariat Court on 13‑4‑2001, whereby the suit of petitioner herein for the recovery of dower amount to the extent of Rs.43,274 was decreed.

2. The necessary facts, giving rise to the present petition for leave to appeal, are that a suit was instituted for the recovery of dower amount worth Rs.1,11,174 before the District Judge Mirpur by the petitioner on 6‑5‑1997 which was subsequently, transferred to the Judge; Family Court, Mirpur on 1‑10‑1998. It was alleged in the plaint that she had filed a suit for dissolution of marriage and the counter‑suit for restitution of conjugal rights was instituted by respondent No.1. It was also alleged that at the time of marriage the parents of the petitioner had given dowry in the shape of furniture, Sofa set, dresses, Fridge, T.V. washing machine, precious crockery and other utensils, the detail of which was annexed with the plaint, worth Rs.1,11,174 and the same is still in possession of the respondent. The respondent contested the suit and repudiated the claim of petitioner. After the conclusion of the trial of suit, the trial Court dismissed the suit for the recovery of dower amount filed by the petitioner vide the judgment and decree, dated 31‑1‑2000. The petitioner herein preferred appeal before the Shariat Court on 23‑2‑2000 and a learned Judge in the Shariat Court vide his impugned judgment and decree, dated 13‑4‑2001 accepted the claim of petitioner to the extent of Rs.43,274 and rejected the remaining claim. Thus, a decree of Rs.43,274 was passed in favour of petitioner. It is the aforesaid order of the Shariat Court which is the subject of present petition for leave to appeal.

3. In support of petition it was vehemently contended by Ch. Muhammad Riaz Alam, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Shariat Court fell in error in observing that the petitioner herein has proved her claim only to the extent of Rs.43,274 and failed to prove the rest of the claim. The learned counsel contended that the learned Judge in the Shariat Court lost sight of the fact that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and Qanun‑e‑Shahadat have no application in the proceedings before the Family Court or the Shariat Court. He in this regard referred to section 17 of the Family Courts Act which provides that none of the provisions of the Evidence Act or the Code of Civil Procedure would be applicable in the proceedings before the Judge, Family Court. The learned counsel contended that although in the impugned judgment it has been mentioned by the learned Judge in the Shariat Court that the aforesaid provisions of C.P.C. and Qanun‑e‑Shahadat have no application but all the same rejected the claim of the petitioner to the extent of remaining amount. The petitioner herein in her statement produced the receipts which establish the fact that the cost of dowery was Rs.1,11,174 but her statement was not cross‑examined meaning thereby that the statement made by the plaintiff‑petitioner stands admitted to the opposite party. The learned counsel contended that the learned Judge in .the Shariat 'Court did not apply the relevant law in its true perspective. When the learned counsel for the petitioner was confronted with the situation as to what point of public importance is involved in the case in hand, he submitted that the provisions of C.P.C. and Qanun‑e‑Shahadat have no application to the proceedings before the Family Court but the learned Judge in the Shariat Court though partly accepted the claim of the petitioner but ignored the rest of the claim of the petitioner.

4. Controverting the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M. Riaz Tabassum, the learned counsel for the respondent, contended 'that no misreading or non‑reading of evidence has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner as such the judgment against which the petition for leave to appeal has been filed warrants no interference.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the learned Judge in the Shariat Court has rightly observed that the provisions of C.P.C. and Qanun‑e‑Shahadat have no application in the proceedings before the Family Court. The learned Judge in the Shariat Court rightly appreciated the evidence and the appraisal of evidence needs no interference by this Court. In my considered view no point of legal importance has been raised by the learned counsel .for the petitioner which is a necessary ingredient for grant of leave in matrimonial matters. In a case reported as Muhammad Saeed v. Mst. Begum Noor 1999 CLC 1356 it was observed that an appeal to the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir from the judgment, decree or order of the Shariat Court shall lie only if the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir being satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law of public importance grants leave to. appeal. Respectfully following the aforesaid authority, I am also of the view that the instant case does not involve a substantial question of law of public importance. Therefore, the leave stands refused. In the circumstances of the case, I pass no order as to costs. H.B.T./195/SC(AJ&K) Petition dismissed.