Through this judgment, I propose to dispose of two connected Constitutional petitions bearing Writ Petition No, 7754 of 2005 (Ambreen alias Kiran Shah v. Capt. Najam-ul-Hassan Naqvi and another) and Writ Petition No, 8686 of 2005 (Major Najam-ul-Hassan Naqvi v. Additional District Judge, Lahore and two others), as both of them arise out of the same judgment and decree dated 23.4.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, whereby he affirmed the judgment and decree dated 3.2.2005 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Lahore in a suit for recovery of dowry articles filed by Ambreen alias Kiran Shah.
2. Succinctly the facts giving rise to these Constitutional petitions were that Ambreen alias Kiran Shah (hereinafter called the petitioner) had been married to Capt. Najam-ul-Hassan Naqvi (hereinafter called the respondent) in the year 1999; the Nikah had been performed on 3.9.1999, whereas Rukhsati had taken place on 15.10.1999; the relations between the two became strained and ultimately resulted into divorce, which became effective in the month of April, 2002; from the said wedlock, a son, namely, Ali Hassan Naqvi, had born, who is now in the custody of the petitioner.
According to the petitioner, her parents had given her dowry article valued at Rs, 13,00,650/- at the time of her marriage, which had been handed over to the respondent, as per list duly signed by him and are still in his custody; on his refusal to return the same, the petitioner filed a suit for recovery of dowry articles or in the alternative the value thereof i,e, Rs, 13,00,650/-.
The suit was contested by the respondent and on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, four issues including that of relief had been farmed. In support of her version, the petitioner had produced affidavits of three witnesses, namely, Shaukat Ali Sherazi, who is her special attorney as well, Muhammad Ibrahim and Muhammad Waris, who had also appeared in the witness box. In addition to that, documentary evidence had also been tendered by her. In rebuttal, besides the respondent, Syed Asad Abbas Naqvi and Syed Tassaduq Hussain Naqvi appeared in the witness box and also submitted their affidavits. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Family Court proceeded to decree the suit partially vide its judgment and decree dated 3.2.2005. The concluding paragraph thereof reads as under:-- "In the light of my issue-wise findings, the parties are entitled for the following relief:- The plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of dowry articles according to the list attached with the plaint, excluding the Items Nos, 111, 119 to 130 and all the items mentioned on the page No, 6/last page of the list, or in lieu their value Rs, 8,75,000/-, fixed by the Court, after excluding the value of the Articles Nos, 111, 119 to 130 and all the items mentioned on the page No, 6/last page of the list, after deducting the exaggerated value because no purchasing receipts are produced by the 'plaintiff and the value mentioned in the list are more than prevailing market value and after deducting the depreciation because the articles mentioned in the list are subject to wear and tear.
No order as to costs."
Feeling aggrieved of the said judgment and decree, both the petitioner as well as the respondent preferred appeals before the learned District Judge, Lahore, which were entrusted to a learned Additional District Judge for adjudication, who vide his judgment and decree dated 23.4.2005 proceeded to dismiss both the appeals.
Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner has filed the instant Constitutional petition on the plea that the reduction in the price of dowry articles is unwarranted and uncalled for and that she is entitled to a decree for the recovery of Rs, 13,00,650/-, whereas the respondent has approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No, 8686 of 2005 on the plea that the judgments and decrees dated 23.4.2005 and 3.2.2005, passed by the learned Additional District Judge and the learned Family Judge, Lahore, respectively, are not based on record and the alleged signatures o the list of dowry articles had been forged and hence the same be got compared b a Handwriting Expert. According to him, he had moved an application before the learned trial Court in this respect, but the same had been dismissed without any justification. He has also prayed that he may be e Mowed to place on record photographs and video of Nikah of the parties. 'He has lastly prayed that the judgments and decrees of the Courts below be quashed.
3. A pre-admission notice had been issued to the respective parties in be Ali the writ petitions.
However, as both the learned counsel agreed to argue the petitions on merits, rather than addressing preliminary agreements, therefore, I have heard them at considerable length.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his petition has argued that the learned Courts below had wrongly observed that some of the dowry articles had been overvalued and that they had reached the said conclusion without any lawful justification; that the reduction in the price of dowry articles was unwarranted and uncalled for and that the petitioner was entitled to a decree for Rs, 13,00,650/- as value of her dowry articles instead of Rs, 8,75,000/-, i,e, the amount determined by the learned Courts below. He has also argued that there is overwhelming evidence to prove that the articles mentioned in the list of dowry articles, which was 'signed by the respondent, were actually given to her by her parents and it stood established on the record that the same were of the value of Rs, 13,00,650/-and thus she is entitled to recovery the said articles or in the alternative the value thereof. It has been lastly prayed that the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below are liable to be modified and claim of the petitioner merits to be decreed in toto.
5. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the miscellaneous application filed by the respondent for getting compared his signatures on the alleged list of dowry articles from the Handwriting Expert had been wrongly ignored by the learned trial Court and hence the judgment and decree passed by it could not be upheld; that the report of the Handwriting Expert would have helped the learned trial Court to reach a just and correct decision about the authenticity of the list of alleged dowry articles and the failure of the Courts below to summon the Handwriting Expert had resulted in failure of justice. It has also been argued that there was hardly any evidence available on the record to the effect that the dowry articles had actually been handed over to the respondent or that the same were lying in his house, therefore, the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below suffer from illegality and material irregularity and that the learned Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence available on the record, therefore, the impugned judgments and decrees are the result of misreading and non- reading of the evidence and as such are liable to be quashed.
6. I have consciously heard and considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for both the sides in support of their pleas and have also gone through the impugned judgments as well as the available record.
7. It has already been mentioned in the earlier paragraphs that the petitioner had submitted affidavits of three witnesses, namely, Shaukat Ali Sherazi (P.W.1), Muhammad Ibrahim (P.W.2) and Muhammad Waris (P.W.3), who had also appeared in the witness box and had been cross- examined. In rebuttal, the respondent had appeared in the written box as D.W. 1 and got examined Syed Asad Abbas and Syed Tassaduq Hussain Naqvi as D.Ws. 2 & 3, respectively. Besides his own affidavit, he had also submitted affidavits of his aforesaid two witnesses. From the side of the petitioner, besides other documentary evidence, list of dowry articles (Ex. P3) was also brought on record. The learned trial Court after discussing the evidence on record at length came to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to the recovery of dowry articles according to the list attached with the plaint and decreed the suit in the manner as aforementioned.
8. Insofar as the question of sending the list of dowry articles to the Handwriting Expert is concerned, the same was hardly necessary because the opinion of the Handwriting Expert is not binding on the Court and usually such a step causes undue delay in the proceedings. In a family suit, adopting such a course would have certainly added to the agony of the plaintiff. I feel that while dealing with a Constitutional petition, it would not be appropriate to set aside the judgments of the learned Courts below merely for their refusal to send a document to the Handwriting Expert particularly when the evidence on the record in this particular case is otherwise sufficient to effectively decide the same. In these circumstances, I am of the view that re-appraisal of the evidence available on the record while deciding a writing petition would be hardly desirable.
9. I do not find any valid reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts of the learned Courts below because in this case it was 'riot asserted from any side at the time of arguments that the impugned judgments and decrees are without lawful authority or the same are, in any way, without any legal effect. Both the learned Courts below appear to have properly appreciate the evidence on record and applied their judicial mind while passing the impugned judgments and decrees, which are based on sound reasons and clearly clothed with authority. Hence, there is no justification for this Court to interfere in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction. There is no merit in both the writ petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.