JUDGMENT IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.- Maqsood Ahmad, petitioner filed against Mst. Samina Shaheen, respondent a Suit No. 310/PC for restitution of conjugal rights, whereas Mst. Samina Shaheen filed against him suit bearing No. 418/FC for dissolution of marriage and the recovery of dower amount of Rs. 50,000/- dowry and maintenance etc. Both the suits were consolidated. Relevant issues were formulated. After recording such evidence, as the parties wished to adduce, Miss Kulsoom Azam, Judge Family Court, Peshawar, through judgment and decree dated 18.11.2003 dismissed the suit of the petitioner husband for restitution of conjugal rights and partially decreed suit of the respondent wife qua dissolution of marriage, recovery of dower amount of Rs. 50,000/- and dowry article-etc. An appeal was preferred thereagainst by the petitioner husband, Which did not succeed. The same was dismissed by judgment dated 10,6.2004, passed by Additional District Judge, Peshawar. Hence instant writ petition by the petitioner husband.
2. We have heard Qazi Abdul Basit, Advocate for the petitioner husband and Mr., Zafar Javed Durrani,' Advocate for respondent wife, in the light of the material on the file.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner husband vehemently contended that impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below, are not in consonance with the material on the file and, as such, cannot be allowed to remain intact. The learned counsel invited our attention to the "Kabin Nama" dated 8.3.2001 and attempted to argue that in fact an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was fixed as dower but an interpolation was made in the "Nikah Nama" dated 10.3.2001 and the amount of dower was changed from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-. The learned counsel also questioned the dowry list and dubbed the same as fictitious, maintaining that learned Trial Judge' had no justifiable reasons to accept the list and make the same;basis of the respondent wife's claim. Concluding the arguments, learned counsel asserted that had the Appellate Court gone through the entire material, it would have given a different and correct opinion, accepting the appeal filed by petitioner husband and rejecting the claim of respondent wife, In this regard reliance was placed on Mst. Allah Rakhi v. Tanweer Iqbal and others (2004 SGMR 1739).
4. Contrarily, learned counsel for the respondent wife defended the impugned judgments on all counts and submitted that the Courts below have evaluated and appreciated the evidence of the parties in a legal fashion, thus, does not warrant any interference by this Court.
5. We have carefully taken into consideration the arguments of learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the evidence with their assistance.
6. The impugned judgments are being attacked mainly on the ground that the evidence recorded by the Trial Court has not been appreciated in right direction, It is pleaded that the evidence is misread, which a resulted in manifest injustice. Having adjudged the matter from all angles, we are of the view that impugned judgments and decrees are supported by actual evidence on the file and the matter has been dealt with in a proper manner after application of independent mind. A perusal of Column 12 of the "Nikah Nama" dated 10.3.2003 would reveal that an amount of Rs.
50,000/- was fixed as dower of the respondent wife. Iltaf Hussan (D.W.I), Nikah Registrar, Lahori Ward, Peshawar has also stated so. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner husband that an interpolation was made in the "Nikah-Nama/' and the dower amount was subsequently increased, is devoid of force. The respondent wife has produced sufficient evidence in support of her claim. There is nothing in rebuttal, It is the basic principle of law that one who asserts must prove it. The objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner husband regarding dowry list, is also without force. The list has been satisfactorily proved through the deposition of the respondent wife and the witnesses produced by her at the trial, It is well-settled proposition of law that for a specific assertion made by the witness, material to the controversy of the case, is not challenged in cross-examination by putting contrary suggestions, then the same is to be given full credit and shall be accepted as true unless displayed by reliable, * cogent and clear evidence.
7. This Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction cannot interfere with the findings of fact, unless it was shown that such findings by the lower Court suffers from misreading/non-reading, which had affected the findings on merit, In Export Promotion Bureau and others v. Qaiser Shafiullah (1994 SCM R 859) it was held:-- "Constitutional jurisdiction is not designed and intended to be used as a substitute for a regular appeal or to be equated with a regular appeal, In a Constitutional petition the High Court cannot interfere with a finding of fact merely on the ground that the reasons which found favour with the. Authority whose order is under scrutiny were not such which would have been accepted by the High Court.
The I Constitutional jurisdiction can be invoked to rectify jurisdictional defects, It is to be pressed into service against an order which is without jurisdiction or tainted with malice or is violative of a provision of the Constitution/law and not to correct a finding of fact. However, even in Constitutional jurisdiction the High Court may interfere with a finding of fact, if it is founded on no evidence or is contrary to the service."
8. Decisions of forums constituted under the special law are normally not interfered with in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction unless the same are illegal, void and without jurisdiction.
In view of the above, we find that the Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence available on record and we have not been able to find out any illegality inviting interference in the concurrent findings of Courts of competent jurisdiction. The writ petition having been found bereft of substance is dismissed, with no order as to costs. < .