' ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J.---Petitioner through this constitutional petition has questioned the judgment and decree, dated 24-7-2008, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Khushab, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent was accepted and the suit of the respondent for the recovery of dower articles was decreed to the extent of Rs,40,000.
2. The respondent, who was married with the petitioner because of the strained relations, filed a suit for the recovery of dowry articles given to her at the time of marriage and those are still lying in the house of the petitioner. The suit was vehemently contested by the petitioner by filing written statement, wherein it was stated by the petitioner that the petitioner has already returned the dowry articles in presence of the witnesses on 8-11-1999 and thereafter divorced her, therefore, the claim of the petitioner is false and incorrect. The learned trial Court out of the pleading of the parties framed as many as three issues, recorded the evidence of the parties and finally dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree, dated 26-6-2008. The respondent being aggrieved of the said judgment and decree preferred an appeal and the same was accepted by the learned appellate Court whereby the respondent was held entitled to recover Rs,40,000 as alternate of the dowry articles. Hence this constitutional petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned appellate Court seriously erred in law to interfere with the well reasoned judgment rendered by the learned trial Court. Next contended that the respondent miserably failed to prove her claim of dowry articles by adducing any independent and confidence inspiring evidence, therefore, the findings recorded by the learned appellate Court is result of misreading and non-reading of material evidence and is not sustainable. Learned counsel also contended that the respondent has not given the detail of the dowry articles and particularly failed to mention the names of the dowry articles in response of a question put by the petitioner. The father of the respondent, who also appeared in the witness box could not support the claim of the respondent and the evidence of P.W.2 is totally contrary to the contents of the plaint, whereas the learned appellate Court has granted the relief to the respondent but without referring any thing from the record.
4. Conversely the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent has placed on record the list of the dowry articles, which was too exhibited, therefore, the learned appellate Court has rightly granted the relief to the respondent. Next contended that the respondent while appearing in the witness box has successfully proved the list of dowry articles, whereas no specific question was put by the petitioner during the cross-examination, therefore, the respondent has successfully proved her claim. Lastly contended that the claim of the respond ,nt was fully supported by her father, who did appear in the witness box, whereas on the other hand no one appeared in support of the petitioner, therefore, the findings recorded by the learned appellate Court are correct and do no call for any interference at this stage.
6. Heard. Record perused.
7. I myself have perused the record of the case and found that admittedly dowry articles were given to the respondent at the time of her marriage and same were too brought into the house of the petitioner as the petitioner himself admitted in the written statement as well as while appearing in the witness box that the dowry articles given to the respondent were returned to her in the presence of the witnesses. The record further reveals that although the petitioner stated in the written statement as well as during the course of recording the evidence that the petitioner returned the dowry articles on 8-11-1999 to the respondent in presence of the witnesses but the petitioner did not produce even a single witness in support of this assertion. The only statement of the petitioner can hardly be relied while deciding the fate of the case as on the other hand the father of the respondent appeared in the witness box and supported the version of the respondent.
8. The learned appellate Court has already sufficiently decreased the claim of the respondent from Rs,127,000 to Rs,40,000, therefore, there is hardly any reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment and decree passed by the learned appellate Court. Even otherwise the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any jurisdictional defect, material irregularities, misreading and non-reading of evidence passed by the learned appellate Court, therefore, the judgment passed by the appellate Court is upheld and the instant constitutional petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.