' SH. HAKIM ALI, J.--- Through the instant writ petition, Shafqat Ali, defendant/petitioner has challenged the legality of judgment and decree, dated 19-11-2003, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Hasilpur, in Family Suit No,37 of 2003 (Nighat Perveen v. Shafqat Ali, by which the suit for the recovery of dowry articles was decreed to the tune of Rs,30,000 as consideration money for the dowry articles.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that no receipt of purchase of the alleged dowry articles was proved through the production of any witness to it. It has further been argued that the learned Judge, Family Court has noted in his judgment that the plaintiff/respondent had failed to prove her contention about the delivery of dowry articles according to the principles of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. As per learned counsel, after holding this fact, the judgment could not be passed in favour of the plaintiff. The learned counsel has further submitted that no solid evidence to prove the delivery of dowry articles was produced by the plaintiff/respondent and the judgment has proceeded merely on conjectures. The judgment has also been disputed by the learned counsel on the basis of plaintiff having left to mention the value of the dowry articles in her plaint in paras.4, 6 and the prayer clause. So the learned counsel prayed for declaring the impugned judgment and decree to be illegal and without lawful authority.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Nighat Perveen plaintiff/respondent, has replied that the petitioner has failed to annex the receipts (in relation to purchase of dowry articles) which were produced in the trial Court in the shape of marks "A" and "B". He has also asserted that Mst. Nighat Perveen, while appearing as P.W.1, in her cross-examination in reply to a question, has given the details of the dowry articles. The learned counsel has further supported the correctness of the impugned judgment by stating that Mst. Nighat Perveen was a teacher at the time of solemnization of her marriage and had sufficient means to purchase the articles. It has also been stated that the brother of the plaintiff was a working person and the parents of the respondent/ plaintiff had means to give dowry articles to Mst. Nighat Perveen.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
5. At the outset, I would like to refer that the defendant/petitioner has failed to produce the copies of the documents regarding purchase of articles which were produced into evidence as marks "A" and "B". No application as to why these documents were being withheld was attached with the writ petition. Withholding of material evidence raises presumption that the documents were going to affect the case of the petitioner adversely, therefore, these documents were not produced.
However, on the merits and after perusing it, I have found that appreciation of the learned trial Court with regard to the evidence brought on the record is not of such nature so as to call for interference by this Court in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. It is an admitted fact that provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, are not applicable to the proceedings to be conducted by the Family Court, therefore, rigours and technicalities of the provisions of Qanun- eShahadat Order, being not applicable to the cases of family nature, the trial Court had to evaluate and appreciate the evidence as a prudent man would be able to assess and reach a conclusion.
The mere non-mentioning of the value in some paras. Of the plaint would not affect the case of the plaintiff because she had clearly mentioned in para.5 of the plaint not only the nature of dowry articles delivered to her but the value thereof with grand total as well. Therefore, the missing total in the other places in paras.4, 6 and prayer clause is not of much significance. The correctness of the version of the plaintiff is found from the statement which was got recorded by her during the trial.
In cross-examination, she had deposed minor details of all the articles of dowry granted/delivered to her. So the statement of P.W.1, being confidence-inspiring cannot be disbelieved. It may be clarified that in such cases, the exact and strict technical compliance is not required. The rule of thumb as expounded in Muhammad Sharif v. Nawab Din and another PLD 1957 (W.P.) Lah. 283 and S.D.O.(E), WAPDA and others v. Mian Hidayatullah 1995 CLC 739 has to be applied. So the judgment passed by the learned trial Court needs no interference.
6. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs.