' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN, J.--- Shortly narrated the facts, leading to the filing of instant writ petition are that the petitioner married respondent No,1 on 15-11-1999 in lieu of Rs,50,000 cash, gold ornaments weighing 15 Tolas arid 1/6th share in House No,1346 in Mohallah Ganj, Peshawar City as dower. A sum of Rs,1,000 per month was fixed as maintenance allowance. The couple lived together for some time whereafter the wife was expelled by the husband from his house. Resultantly the wife filed Suit No,30/FC on 18-6-2001 for recovery of dower, possession of house and recovery of maintenance allowance since February, 2001. The petitioner husband also filed a suit against the respondent wife for restitution of conjugal rights, return of gold ornaments and Rs,80,000 statedly given to the mother of respondent wife as Qarz-e-Hasana. Both the suits were consolidated and issues were formulated out of the pleadings of the parties. After recording evidence of the parties, the learned Judge, Family Court, Peshawar, vide her consolidated judgment dated 24-9-2002 granted a partial decree for restitution of conjugal rights to the petitioner husband subject to payment of dower of Rs,50,000, gold ornaments to the extent of 10 Tolas or price thereof and providing separate accommodation to respondent wife, while the remaining prayer of the petitioner husband was declined. Through the same judgment, a partial decree was also passed in favour of respondent wife for recovery of Rs,50,000 cash, recovery of 10 Tolas of gold ornaments as dower and maintenance at the rate of Rs,1,000 per month since February, 2001 till the respondent wife remained in the wedlock of the petitioner husband. Decree for maintenance allowance was also granted to Saqlain respondent No,2 herein (minor) at the rate of Rs,1,000 per month since February, 2001 till date and till the age of puberty. Remaining claim was dismissed with no order as to costs. An appeal was preferred before learned District Judge, Peshawar which was entrusted to learned Additional District Judge, Peshawar for disposal. The learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and maintained the impugned judgment, through his judgment dated 8-3-2003. The petitioner has challenged the concurrent findings of the Courts below through instant Constitutional petition and in support of the petition Haji Muhammad Zahir Shah, Advocate for the petitioner contended with force that the judgment and decrees of the Courts below are illegal, without jurisdiction and without lawful authority to the extent of decree granted to respondents Nos.1 and 2 and dismissing suit of the petitioner husband. Additionally, the learned counsel submitted that the evidence produced by his client has not been properly taken into consideration and kept aside without any justifiable reason which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. the submissions of the learned counsel carry no weight. Concurrent findings by the Family Court and the Appellate Court cannot be successfully challenged/assailed in writ jurisdiction unless the Court is found to have exceeded jurisdiction, acted without jurisdiction or finding are shown to have been based on no evidence. Constitutional petition also A does not lie to challenge an order on the ground that evidence in the case was not correctly appreciated because findings of facts recorded by Courts of competent jurisdiction cannot be disturbed simply on the ground that another view could be possible on the same evidence. High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction cannot sit as a Court of appeal and cannot substitute findings of facts recorded by the Court below on such matters. A perusal of the impugned judgments reveals that plausible reasons have been given in support of the conclusions arrived at and no case of misreading or non-reading of evidence has been made out. It needs no reiteration that appraisal or evaluation of evidence usually is not made in Constitutional petition. Such exercise is essentially undertaken by trial Court as held in Khalil Ahmad v. Allah Rakhi and another 1994 M LD 119 (Lahore) and Muhammad Ibrahim v. Mst. Farzana and another PLD 1994 Kar.
255. The High Court would not interfere with judgment and decree passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction for the reasons that it was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Judge Family Court to believe or disbelieve the evidence; and that the Judge has given reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at by him. No Constitutional petition lies to challenge an order in appeal on the ground that the evidence in the case has not been properly appreciated.
2. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, finding no flaw in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, we dismiss the petition in liming.