2019 PLP 50 (CLCN)

KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.

Through this petition, petitioner Ghulam Rasool son of Haji Khan Muhammad Mari has challenged the judgment dated 04.7.2018 and decree dated 10.07.2018, passed by learned Ist. Additional District Judge, Mirpurkhas, dismissing the Family Appeal No.14 of 2018 re: Ghulam Rasool v. Mst. Raveena, filed against the judgment dated 26.2.2018 and decree dated 28.2.2018, passed by the Court of Family Judge-I, Mirpurkhas in Family Suit No.50 of 2017 re: Mst. Raveena v. Ghulam Rasool, partly decreeing the suit to the extent of recovery of dower amount of Rs.200000/- (two lac); maintenance of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 for her Iddat period at the rate of Rs.5000/-per month; the past maintenance for both the minors sons of the parties namely Abdul Raheem aged about 4 years and Faisal aged about 2 years at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month from November, 2016 till the disposal of the suit; and, future maintenance at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month for each minor till they attain their majority with the increase of 10% per year, declining the other prayers of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 Mst. Raveena including the prayer of recovery of dowry articles.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case, are that plaintiff/respondent No.1 Mst. Raveena filed Family Suit No.50 of 2017 for recovery of dowry articles and maintenance against the petitioner in the Court of Civil Judge/Family Judge-I, Mirpurkhas, alleging that she was married with the petitioner/defendant in the year 2012 according to Muhammadan law against the dower amount of Rs.300000/-, which is still unpaid despite repeated demands by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 from the petitioner/defendant. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 was also given dowry articles as shown in the list annexed with the plaint at the time of her rukhsati by her parents, which she had taken to the house of the defendant. Out of this wedlock, two children namely Abdul Raheem and Faisal were born. However, due to the dispute arose between the parties, the defendant had driven out the plaintiff/respondent No.1 from his house in three cloths along with minor children and then the petitioner/defendant on 7.11.2017 had divorced the plaintiff/respondent No.1 which was also reduced into writing in a deed of divorce. As the petitioner/defendant failed to provide maintenance to the minor children and to pay the dower amount to the plaintiff and having also not returned the dowry articles, therefore, the plaintiff filed the aforesaid family suit before the Court of Family Judge-I, Mirpurkhas.

3. The petitioner/defendant filed his written statement, wherein he had admitted his marriage with the plaintiff; and the aforesaid minors from this wedlock. He, however, further stated that dower amount was paid by him to the respondent No.1/plaintiff in presence of the witnesses; and, that the excessive Dower amount i.e. "Haq Mahar" is written in the plaint by the plaintiff. It is further averred by the defendant that nothing in the dowry articles was given to the plaintiff by her parents.

4. On the divergent pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for dower amount?

2. Whether the plaintiff and minor are entitled for maintenance?

3. Whether the dowry articles of plaintiff are in possession of defendant?

4. What should the decree be?

5. The parties led their respective evidence and then after hearing the parties, the learned Family Court passed the impugned judgment and decree as discussed in paragraph-1 (supra).

6. Having felt aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, passed by the Family Court, the petitioner preferred appeal being Family Appeal No.14 of 2018 in the Court of learned District Judge, Mirpurkhas, which was ultimately decided by the learned Ist. Additional District Judge, Mirpurkhas vide judgment dated 04.7.2018 and decree dated 10.07.2018, whereby the said appeal has been dismissed. Thereafter the petitioner has filed this petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly contended that the learned Family Court as well as learned Appellate Court have not properly appreciated the evidence brought on record while passing the impugned judgments and decrees; and, that the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below are illegal. He, therefore, prays that the appeal may be allowed and the matter may be remanded to the learned Family Court for decision afresh after reappraisal of the evidence. None is present for the respondent Mst. Raveena.

8. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the material placed on record.

9. From a perusal of the record, it would be seen that the learned Family Court after appreciating the evidence brought on record decreed the suit to the extent of recovery of dower amount of Rs.200000/- (two lac), fixed at the time of Nikah of the parties, as is evident from the evidence of the Nikah Khawan and Nikahnama produced by him at Ex.27/A as against the Dower amount of Rs.300,000/- (three lacs) claimed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 Mst. Raveena; maintenance for her 'Iddat' period at the rate of Rs.5000/-per month as against Rs.8000/- (Eight thousand) per month by the respondent No.1/plaintiff; past maintenance for both the minor sons of the parties namely Abdul Raheem aged about 4 years and Faisal aged about 2 years at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month from November, 2016 till the disposal of the suit; and future maintenance at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month for each minor till they attain their majority with the increase of 10% per year, declining the other prayers of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 Mst. Raveena including her prayer of recovery of dowry articles, keeping in view the source of income of the petitioner, otherwise such an amount during these hard days in which the value of the essential commodities and the articles of basic requirements is so exorbitant that one can hardly meet expenses of the basic requirements on such amount, having been allowed by the learned Family Court. The learned appellate Court also after reappraisal of the evidence has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. The relevant paragraph of the judgment of the appellate Court reads as under:- "the learned trial Court has not granted whole relief in shape of dower amount and maintenance allowance to the plaintiff/respondent as prayed by her in her plaint. It is fact that the respondent/plaintiff has prayed for relief of Rs.3,00,000/- as dower amount, but the learned trial Court keeping in view the material in the shape of evidence produced before the learned trial Court only granted Rs.2,00,000/-as dower amount. Likewise the learned trial Court has also not granted Rs.8000/- per month to respondent/plaintiff as her maintenance allowance as prayed by her, but only granted Rs.5000/- per month to respondent/plaintiff as her maintenance allowance. Even the maintenance allowance for minor was also granted at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month instead of Rs.5000/- per month as prayed by the respondent/plaintiff. It is also fact that the appellant/defendant is serving in Pakistan Army and drawing reasonable amount in shape of salary as well as other allowances and he can easily afford to pay Rs.3000/-per month to each minor and as per economical situation prevailing in the country Rs.3000/- per month is not excessive amount for maintenance of one child It reflects from the perusal of whole record that no any illegality or irregularity has committed by the learned trial Court while passing the impugned judgment and decree, which looks to be balanced one and the amount fixed by the learned trial Court for dower amount, as well as maintenance for Iddat period of respondent/plaintiff and her both minors is also looked to be reasonable under the circumstances of the case. Even no any illegality or irregularity highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant allegedly committed by the learned family Court while passing the impugned judgment and decree, hence no any illegality or irregularity found in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Court and it looks that the impugned judgment and decree is elaborated, balanced and well explained passed after proper appreciation of evidence adduced by both the parties."

10. I have seen the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below and found them apt to the facts, circumstances and the law and both the judgments and decrees of the learned lower Courts are based on appraisal of evidence, which do not suffer from any illegality or any jurisdictional defect. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also not been able to point out any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional defect in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below attracting exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Accordingly, this petition is liable to be dismissed. These are the reasons of short order announced by me on 29.8.2018, whereby this petition was dismissed with no order as to costs. SA/G-6/Sindh Petition dismissed.