This is rather on unfortunate case. On 9.7.1997 the respondent lady filed a suit against the petitioner for recovery of dowry articles or value thereof. The suit was resisted. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. Now in the first instance the suit was decreed by the learned trial Court on 9.3.99. A first appeal was allowed and the ease was remanded back on 28.7.99. Thereafter on 4.4.2000, the suit was dismissed. This time it was remanded on the appeal of the respondent vide order dated 17.2.2001. Thereafter additional evidence was recorded. Now the learned trial Court found that dowry articles as claimed by respondent lady were given as dowry and are in possession of the petitioner, yet instead of claimed value of the 'same, the suit was decreed in the sum of Rs, 60,000/- only. Against this decree a first appeal was filed by the petitioner. The respondent also put in challenge by filing cross-objection. Her grievance was that full value of Rs, 1,77,285/- be awarded. Learned District Judge, Jhelum, heard both the matters and while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner modified the decree and awarded the whole claim of Rs, 1,77,285/- in the alternate. This was done vide judgment and decree dated 16.12:2003.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned District Judge has acted without lawful authority in modifying the decree by allowing cross-objections. As according to him there is no provision for cross-objections in the Family Courts Act, 1964. Further has tried to question the findings recorded on merits.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records with assistance of the learned counsel. Now what happened in this case is that the petitioner filed a suit initially for recovery of dowry as mentioned in the list annexed with the plaint or its market value. The list in Exh. P1. The petitioner responded that no dowry was given rather the petitioner himself purchased some goods and sent to the house of the respondent and same things were sent showing them as dowry. According to him she took away the clothes and also 12 tolas ornaments given by him. An objection regarding Court-fee was also taken. It appears that this objection was pressed and learned trial Court directed the respondent to value the goods claimed. She accordingly filed an amended plaint after valuing the goods in the said list. Consequently she claimed the said amount in alternate. In her evidence she gave the details of the goods given. A list was also proved. In the brief cross-examination, it was suggested that meagre dowry was given and she had taken it away which suggestion was denied.
Now the petitioner entered the witness-box as DW-1 and proceeded to state that respondent did bring dowry but had taken it away. In his cross-examination he was confronted and verified details of the gold ornaments as stated by the respondent lady. Learned trial Court recorded the finding on 2.6.03 that all the goods mentioned in the list were given as dowry and the petitioner has failed to prove his contention that she .had taken away the dowry. He, however, in an arbitrary manner proceeded to reduce the value of the claim to Rs, 60,000/-without there being any plea or evidence in support of the same. Learned District Judge modified the decree as stated by me above.
4. Now coming to the said contention of the learned counsel. It is true that the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable by virtue of Section 17 of the Family Courts Act, .1964. However, I may note here that Section 14 of the said Act providing for an appeal is worded rather in peculiar manner. Upon reading of the said Section 14 it provides that a decision given or decree passed by a Learned Family Court except those mentioned in subsection (2) shall be appealable to the High Court where the Family Court is presided over by a District or Addl. District Judge and to a District Court in any other case. As to who can file an appeal and as to what appellate power is to be exercised the provision is intact. Similar is the case with Rule 22 of the Family Courts Rules, 1965.
Now although the document or statement filed by the respondent in the Court of learned District Judge is worded as cross-objection yet by all means it prays for modification of the decree. Now in the normal sense the word "appeal" has been judicially interpreted, to means a complaint made to superior Court against a decision of the subordinate Court with prayer that it be set aside or modified. the effect is that cause stands removed for the purpose of deciding soundness of the decision of the subordinate forum. To my mind, not withstanding the said nomenclature used in the said document, by all means the respondent had filed an appeal in terms of Section 14 of the Family Courts Act and same has been allowed and decree sheet has been prepared accordingly.
Nothing turns on the said arguments of the learned counsel. The other contention already stands answered above. The writ petition is dismissed.