' MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, J.--- Through this writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner, Doctor Muhammad Ali Chohan, has sought the indulgence of this Court to set at naught the judgment and decree dated 22-9-2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-III, D.I. Khan, whereby appeal of Mst. Fakhr-un-Nisa, plaintiff/ respondent herein, against the judgment and decree; dated 27-3-2006 of the learned Civil Judge- I, D.I. Khan was accepted.
2. Succinctly stated facts of the case giving rise to this constitutional petition are that the marriage of Mst. Fakhr-un-Nisa was solemnized with Doctor Muhammad Ali Chohan on 1-3-1990 and prior thereto a Kabin Nama was executed on 17-2-1990. At the time of marriage, dowry articles valuing Rs,2,11,660 were brought by Mst. Fakhr-un-Nisa from her parents house and from the wedlock of the spouse a daughter named Faiza Ali was born. But unfortunately the matrimonial relations between the spouses became strained soon thereafter and thus, due to his cruel behaviour, on 13-1-1992 the husband forced her to leave his house along with the small baby. Having no other shelter, Mst.
Fakhr-un-Nisa was constrained to live in her parents house together with the kid. She awaited for reconciliation and reunion but unfortunately could not succeed despite the lapse of sufficient long time. On her failure to get the dowry articles, the wife filed the instant suit for its recovery being Suit No, 1/FC of 2006 which was dismissed by the learned trial Judge Family Court on 27-3-2006, but on appeal it was decreed vide judgment and decree of the learned Appellate Court which is now under challenge in this petition by the husband, Doctor Muhammad Ali Chohan, petitioner herein.
3. Mr. Rustam Khan Kundi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued, Firstly that the list of dowry articles attached with the plaint was fake and concocted and was not admissible in evidence and, Secondly the allegation of dowry worth more than Rs,5,000 was violative of the Dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Act, 1976 and was an offence under the Act
(ibid) and thus, the learned lower Courts have fallen into an error by granting a decree of dowry amounting to Rs,2,11,660.
4. Syed Mastan Ali Zaidi learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No,1, Mst. Fakhr-un- Nisa, submitted that the lower Appellate Court has properly read the evidence and has granted a decree in favour of respondent No,1 on the basis of materials available on record. The matter was under the Family Courts Act and has been decided by a Court of competent jurisdiction to which no exception can be taken.
5. We have carefully gone through entire record of the case and anxiously considered the valuable arguments advanced at the Bar.
6. Admittedly, the marriage of the spouse was solemnized in the year 1990 and in the year 1992 the wife Mst. Fakhr-un-Nisa along with her small daughter named Faiza Ali was turned out by her husband Doctor Muhammad Ali Chohan leaving her dowry articles in the house of her husband/petitioner, the details whereof were listed in the list annexed with the plaint and exhibited as Exh.P.W.2/1. While appearing as P.W.2, the plaintiff had reiterated the contents of her plaint in her statement and in the examination-in-chief, she has categorically mentioned the names of various dowry articles. She was subjected to a lengthy cross-examination but nothing was brought on record to negate her version. Though in the cross-examination, she has admitted about non- availability of receipts of the dowry articles nor she has mentioned the exact prices of certain articles, but non-availability of receipts of the alleged dowry articles or mentioning of wrong price of some articles cannot be a basis to presume that nothing was given to her in the shape of dowry by her parents. In her cross-examination, the plaintiff had clearly stated that the dowry articles were brought to the house of her husband/petitioner in a Datsun and at that time Ghulam Qasim and Sajjad Hussain Shah were present which was still in possession of her husband. The said Ghulam Qasim had appeared as P.W.3 who had confirmed the assertion of the plaintiff by stating that he had participated in the marriage of the plaintiff and the suit dowry articles were brought to the house of the defendant/husband in a Datsun by him along with Sajjad Hussain Shah the other witness. He had named various articles brought in the Datsun in his presence as dowry and was put to the test of lengthy cross-examination but nothing favourable to the defendant/petitioner had come out from his mouth but rather categorically supported the plaintiff/respondent. Likewise, the other witness Sajjad Hussain appearing as P.W.4 had supported the stance of the plaintiff in toto and he was also put to a lengthy cross-examination but nothing had come out to negate the version of the plaintiff.
7. On the contrary, the petitioner had appeared as D.W.1 but had failed to produce any other witness in support of his deposition. He has negated the version of the plaintiff and stated in his statement that a sum of Rs,20,000 was given by him to the father of the plaintiff as loan for the purchase of a sofa set and double bed for her which were brought to his house at the time of her Rukhsati, but the said articles due to lapse of time had been damaged/destroyed, but failed to produce any documentary or oral evidence to substantiate his plea.
8. Regarding the objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the list attached to the plaint was fabricated and concocted one and the same was not admissible in evidence which the learned trial Court has wrongly taken into consideration is without substance, insofar as the list attached with the plaint was duly exhibited in evidence without any objection and once a document is exhibited in evidence without objection or reservation from the other side, no subsequent objection in respect of its admissibility can be taken to the same in view of the dictum handed down in the case of National Bank of Pakistan, Bannu Branch through its Manager v. Sayed Mir 1987 CLC 1103 (Peshawar). The second objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner is also without force because under the provisions of Dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Act, 1976, when the dowry articles are not objected to at the time of Rukhsati of the wife, no objection can be subsequently raised on the ground of violation of the Act (ibid) as held in the judgment reported in the case of Muhammad Tazeel v. Mst. Khair-un-Nisa 1995 SCM R 885.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above, the plaintiff had succeeded to prove her case through cogent, reliable evidence coupled with the ocular account furnished by Ghulam Qasim son of Allah Bakhsh and Sajjad Hussain Shah, appearing as P.Ws.3 and 4 respectively and thus, she was entitled to the return of the dowry articles as per list attached with the plaint amounting to Rs,2,11,660 from the defendant/petitioner and the learned trial Judge had wrongly dismissed her suit which was rightly set aside in appeal through the impugned judgment and decree. The lis has been decided by a Court of competent jurisdiction and no jurisdictional defect has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
10. Consequently, we find no substance in this writ petition which is dismissed along with its Civil Miscellaneous No,118 of 2007.