' SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN, J.--- The above titled four appeals have been directed against one and the same judgment, therefore, these are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. The brief facts forming the background of the present appeals are that Mst. Yasmin Akhtar, the appellant herein filed three suits one for dissolution of marriage and others for recovery of dower and dowry in the Court of Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarabad on 18-6-2003. On the other hand, the defendant-respondent herein, has also filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights before the same Court on 21-7-2003. The trial Court consolidated all the suits vide its order, dated 17-9-2003.
3. In response to the notice of the Court, the defendant-respondent appeared before the trial Court and submitted his written statements wherein he denied all the allegations levelled against him.
The trial Court framed the relevant issues in the light of pleadings of the parties. After framing of issues, the appellant was directed to lead evidence in support of her claim. The appellant produced Zahoor Ahmed, Abdur Rizzaq, Muhammad Nazir, Muhammad Bashir, Muhammad Rahim and Abdul Waheed as her witnesses and she also appeared herself as witness. On the other hand, the defendant-respondent, produced Alif Din, Abdul Jabber, All Akbar, Abdul Majid, Mushtaq Ahmed and Muhammad Rahim as his witnesses and he himself appeared as witness.
4. After the completion of the trial, the trial Court dismissed the suits of the appellant with regards to dissolution of marriage, maintenance and recovery of dowry. On the other hand, the cross-suit filed by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights was decreed in his favour vide its judgment, dated 30-12-2004. Hence, these appeals for reversal of the same.
5. Mr. Lakhi Zaman Khan, the learned counsel for appellant has argued that the trial Court committed grave illegality while dismissing the suits of the appellant without showing any reasons therefore, the judgment of the lower Court is not tenable. The learned counsel further contended that the appellant proved her claim by producing cogent and convincing evidence but the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its true perspective. Finally, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed that by accepting the appeals the decrees for maintenance, dissolution of marriage and recovery of dowry may be passed in her favour and cross-suit filed by the defendant-respondent may be dismissed.
6. Conversely, Raja Muhammad Perviz, the learned counsel for the respondent, while controverting the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the judgment of the trial Court is quite in accordance with law which warrants no interference by this Court. The learned counsel further contended that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on both the sides, therefore, no misreading or non-reading of evidence has been- committed by the trial Court.
The learned counsel defended the impugned judgment on all counts.
7. I have given my due consideration to the arguments addressed at bar and examined the record with utmost care.
8. It is a well-settled principle of law that while deciding controversial points in issue between the parties, the evidence produced must be taken into consideration. The evidence adduced must correctly be appreciated and after the deep dive of evidence, the Court has to form its opinion with regard to the points in issue.
9. A thorough perusal of the record shows that the trial Court has not only failed to appreciate the evidence, rather the evidence has totally been ignored.
10. It transpires from the perusal of decision on Issue No,1, that only two witnesses have shortly been discussed and the rest of the evidence, which includes the statement of Abdul Rizzaq, Bashir, Muhammad Rahim and Abdul Wahwed has totally been blacked out. Again the trial Court relied upon the evidence of Abdul Jabbar and Ali Akbar, the witnesses produced by the respondent, while discussing Issue No,2. But the remaining evidence of Alif Din, Abdul Majid, Mushtaq Ahmed and Muhammad Rahim have not been discussed. In this manner, the trial Court has failed to apply its judicial mind and tried to get rid of the case.
11. It further reveals from the perusal of the impugned judgment, that issue No,5 has been decided in vacuum and no reason or proof to that regard has been shown in the judgment. This shows, the lethargic attitude of the Court towards the controversy or ignorance from the basic requirements of a judgment. A judgment must be self-speaking, narrating the points in issue and the correct appreciation of evidence. As in the instant cases, the trial Court has not only ignored this principle, but also failed to appreciate the whole evidence produced by the parties. In this view of the matter, the trial Court has committed a grave illegality by non-reading and misreading of evidence thus, the same cannot be treated to be a judgment in the eye of law. Therefore, afresh application of mind is required in the instant cases.
11-A. In the light of what has been stated above, I accept these appeals, set aside the impugned judgment, dated 30-12-2004 and remand the cases with the direction that the trial Court shall decide the cases afresh in the light of above observations. The appeals stand disposed of in the manner indicted above. The office is directed to annex the copies of this judgment along with the other connected files. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.