Through this Constitutional petition. The petitioner, who was defendant in the suit for recovery of dowry articles filed by respondent No.2 in the Court of learned Judge Family ,Court, Bahawalnagar and decreed upto the extent of Rs.30,000 as value of dowry articles, seeks setting aside of the impugned judgment and decree dated 26-9-2003 passed by respondent No.1/learned Judge Family Court, Bahawalnagar.
2. In brief, the facts are that Mst.
Kausar Bibi, respondent No.2-plaintiff was married to Muhammad Saleem Akhtar, petitioner- defendant on 11-6-1999 bent the marital bond could not prove a successful union, therefore, respondent No.2-plaintiff filed a suit for dissolution of marriage as well as for the recovery of dowry articles amounting to Rs.56,830 in the Court of learned Judge Family Court, Bahawalnagar. The suit was contested and respondent No.2 was granted not only a decree of dissolution of marriage yet the decree for recovery of dowry articles amounting to Rs.30,000 was also awarded to her on 26-9- 2003 by learned Judge Family Court, Bahawalnagar.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that list of dowry articles was wrongly exhibited into the evidence as Exh.P-1 because no one had appeared to prove the preparation of that list. It has further been argued that suit for recovery of dowry articles was based on mala fide as the suit for dissolution, of marriage was already filed and after filing of the aforesaid suit the instant suit could not be filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner ,has further tried to canvass the solitary statement of the plaintiff was incorrectly believed by the learned Judge Family Court and that violation of the provisions of Dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restrictions) Act, 1976 were committed in the case.
4. After hearing the arguments and perusing the record, I have drawn conclusions that there was no bar in law as to which suit shall be filed first and which to be filed later. If after passing of decree of dissolution of marriage on filing of the suit for dissolution of marriage, the suit for recovery of dowry articles by the plaintiff-respondent No.2 was filed, it was not a violation of any provision of law. In the same . Way, exhibition of list of dowry articles as Exh.P-1 into evidence without production of the person who had prepared it is not always fatal to the case. The Punjab Family Courts Act, 1964 (West Pakistan Act No.XXXV of 1964) has clearly provided in section 17 that the provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Shall not be applicable to the proceedings before the Family Courts. Therefore, the list of dowry articles if it was exhibited into evidence without its scribe, no grievance could be made as to its inadmissibility or its having not been brought on the record in accordance with , the provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.
5. The third point raised by the learned counsel as to the non-production of other witnesses except sole statement of the plaintiff-respondent No 2, it may be clarified here that it is not necessary that in all circumstances and 'in all events, more than one witness shall be produced to prove a case. In family case, the sole statement of any party if inspiring confidence, can be believed and relied upon for the adjudication of the case. In the instant case, learned counsel for the petitioner has not brought to my notice that the statement of the _plaintiff which was recorded onoath before the Court was not believable on any such ground. The quality of evidence has to deterritine the fate and not the quantity has to be kept into consideration for decision of a case.
6. As regards the violation of the Dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Act, 1976, learned counsel has not referred to any provision which was violated by the parties. Moreover, this point which has been now agitated in this Court during arguments, was never raised in the pleadings nor any issue was got framed for that proposition, even in the memo. Of writ petition this point does not find any place in it, therefore, the point raised having not been activated and agitated during the trial of the case, cannot be allowed to be canvassed in this writ petition because the other party would be taken aback at this stage and would have no opportunity to meet it especially during the trial of the case. Accordingly, I do not consider it a fit case for the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction. So, 'the writ petition is dismissed in limine without any order as to costs.