2004 PLP 1826 (YLR)

2. Brief facts forming background of the case are that respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit for dissolution of marriage, maintenance, and dower amount, pleading therein that respondent No.1 was married to the petitioner on 21‑3‑1996 on fixed dower of Rs.25,

000. At the time of marriage plaintiff/respondent No.1 was given dowry articles worth Rs.1,50,000, by her parents which were lying with the petitioner. On account of harsh and insulting behaviour on the part of petitioner, respondent No.1 was compelled to remain in her parents' house but was never paid any maintenance by the petitioner. Accordingly she prayed for (i) dissolution of marriage, (ii) for payment of a sum of Rs.25,000 as dower, (iii) past maintenance and Rs.5000 w.e.f. May, 1998 for both respondents and future maintenance at the same rate till the period of 'Iddat' for respondent No.1 and for respondent No.2 till she got married.

3. The petitioner in his written statement denied the allegations and claim of the respondents. It was pleaded that the dower amount was paid to the respondent No. 1/wife in the shape of golden bracelet and further that the petitioner used to pay Rs.1500 whenever he visited the respondents. It was alleged that respondent No.1 was prevented by her parents not to reside with the petitioner, as their attitude with the petitioner was unfair.

4. All the issues which were relevant and necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute were framed, after failure of pretrial. Consequently the trial commenced.

5. Respondent No.1 examined herself in support of her contentions and was cross examined. However, no evidence was led by the petitioner before the Family Court.

6. On the, basis of evidence adduced and the documents filed on record learned Family Court decreed the suit of respondents Nos.1 and 2 vide judgment dated 8‑12‑2001.

7. The said judgment was upheld in Family Appeal No.3 of 2002 by the learned District Judge, Karachi Central vide his judgment dated 19‑12‑2002.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard at length.

9. It was contended that the findings recorded by the trial Court were perverse and against the evidence inasmuch as that the factum of cruelty was not proved to dissolve the marriages. It was next argued that quantum of maintenance granted by the trial Court was not founded on the evidence. The judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court was attacked on the ground that the same was passed without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/appellant and that it was grossly; lacking in proper appraisal of evidence, thus the same was without lawful authority.

10. Arguments rendered by learned counsel for the petitioner have been carefully considered.

11. Perusal of the judgment passed by the trial Court reveals that sufficient evidence was available on record before learned Family Court. The judgment shows that the pleadings of maltreatment, non maintenance and non‑payment of dower amount were proved by way of leading adequate evidence. Respondent No.1 herself appeared in the witness‑box to depose in support of the pleadings. She was duly cross‑examined on behalf of the petitioner but her evidence on the above points remained unremittingly unrelenting. On the other hand the petitioner opted nor to lead any evidence before the trial Court, to shake up the unscathed evidence adduced on behalf of respondent No.

1. On perusal of the judgment passed by the Appellate Court it transpires that learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant chose to, submit written arguments instead of making oral submissions. The judgment of the Appellate Court clearly and abundantly shows that the evidence on record was properly examined in light of the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner, as will be evident from perusal of para. 7 of the appellate judgment.

12. On scrutiny of the judgments passed by the two Courts below, no perversity, illegality or infirmity was I noticed. Needless to mention that. Constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction which is meant to foster justice and to remedy the wrong but could not be allowed to be invoked in routine course as an additional remedy to hamper the findings of fact, correctly recorded by the forums below. The petition being without merit is dismissed in limine alongwith all the listed applications. H.B.T./M‑43/K Petition dismissed.