Ijaz-ul-Hassan, J.--Mst. Anarkali, respondent, filed suit on 9.9.2002 before Judge Family Court, Charsadda, against her husband Saifur Rehman, petitioner, seeking recovery of gold ornaments weighing five tolas, dower, dowry articles, maintenance, recovery of Rs, 2,00,000/- as damages for mental torture and possession of a residential house. It was averred in the plaint that Wikah' of the couple was recited at Charsadda about three years prior to the institution of the suit in consideration of gold ornaments, dower and a house. A son was born out of the wedlock. The petitioner contracted second marriage during subsistence of the first marriage and made life of the respondent miserable, which obliged the respondent to leave the house of the petitioner and take abode in the house of her parents. During the period of separation, the petitioner did not provide maintenance allowance to the respondent. The said suit was contested by the petitioner defendant by filing written statement. The allegations of the wife were controverted and she was said to have left the house of the husband without any justifiable reason. After formulating relevant issues and recording such evidence as the parties wished to adduce in support of their respective contentions learned trial judge partially allowed suit, vide judgment and decree dated 27.4.2004.
An appeal was preferred thereagainst before learned Sessions Judge, Charsadda, which did not succeed. The appeal was dismissed by judgment dated 27.6.2005.
2. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved, has challenged the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the forums below, by way of filing instant constitutional petition.
3. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Asghar Khan, Advocate attempted to argue that the material available on the record has not been appreciated in right direction by the forums below, which has resulted in manifest injustice and thus the impugned judgments and decrees cannot be allowed to remain intact. The learned counsel maintained that respondent left the house of the petitioner of her own started living in the house of her parents and thus she was not entitled for maintenance. The submissions of the learned counsel do not carry weight. Although the learned counsel has contended that the judgments of the Courts below suffer from the vice of misreading and non-reading of evidence, yet when asked to explain as to which portion of the evidence has been misread and non-read by the forums below, the learned counsel despite his best efforts could not point out any such misreading of non-reading of evidence. The learned counsel has not been able to point out a single paragraph from the judgments impugned before us, which gives the slightest indication that there has been any misreading of the evidence or that any piece of evidence has been discarded or not taken into consideration. The respondent wife appeared in the witness box as PW.1 and she produced her father and maternal uncle, who were examined as PW.2 and PW.3 respectively. They have fully substantiated the claim of the respondent. Their testimony has gone unchallenged. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made a futile attempt to assert that the statements of above mentioned witnesses are not worthy of credence as the same are pregnant with serious infirmities and contradictions. Having considered the matter from all angles, we are of the considered view that Courts below have correctly appreciated the evidence on record and this Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction cannot interfere with the finding of fact, even if with appraisal of evidence it was possible to reach to a different conclusion, unless it was shown that such findings by the lower Courts suffered from misreading/non-reading, which had affected the findings on merits." In Abdul Wall Khan through Legal Heirs and others vs. Muhammad Saleh (1998 SCM R 760), it was held: "According to established law, High Court cannot interfere in the findings of fact which may not be even if on the appraisal of evidence it was possible to reach to a different conclusion unless it was shown that such a finding by the lower Court suffered from misreading or non-reading of evidence which had affected the findings on merits."
4. In view of the above, we hold that the impugned judgments and decrees are neither based on misreading/non-reading of evidence nor the same have been recorded in--violation of law. In the circumstances, we do not feel inclined to interfere with the same. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.