' MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, J.---The plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit on 1-3-2003 before the Judge Family Court, Mianwali for recovery of dowry Articles, in the alternative for Rs,94300, the price thereof. It was averred in the plaint that the parties entered into a marriage bond about 13-years ago. The dowry was given as per list attached with the plaint. The defendant/ respondent did not treat her well, paid no maintenance allowance and eventually turned her out of the house and did not return the dowry.
The suit was resisted alleging that the plaintiff/petitioner had not come to the Court with clean hands and that the marriage was `Watts Satta'. The sister of the defendant at the time of her Nikah with the brother of the plaintiff/petitioner was minor and got the marriage dissolved. The dowry given to the petitioner was trivial and after the dispute was returned. Out of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:--
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of Rs,94,300 as per list of the dowry articles as prayed for in the plaint? OPP
(2) Relief.
The learned Judge Family Court Mianwali after recording the evidence of the parties decreed the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner vide judgment, dated 10-12-2003. The respondent preferred an B appeal before the District Judge Mianwali who allowed the same on 12-4-2004, reversed the judgment/decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is not denied that the dowry was given to the petitioner, however, the defence of the respondent is that it was returned to the petitioner. It is not proved on the record. Learned counsel referred to the statement of Malik Muhammad Surkhuru/D.W.3 wherein it is stated that he (Malik Muhammad Surkhuru) did not go to fetch the dowry articles but had sent two persons, whereas, the respondent while appearing as D.W.1 deposed that Malik Muhammad Surkhuru was also present when the dowry articles were returned.
Conversely the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the dowry given to the petitioner was trivial, the same had been returned. The marriage subsisted for the thirteen years and most of the dowry articles have outlived their life.
3. I have gone through the judgments of the Courts below, perused the record and considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. The learned District Judge reached the following findings:--
(i) The dowry list Exh.P. 1 was prepared at the time of filing of the suit and not at the time of wedding.
(ii) It was deposed by the petitioner that her parents purchased the dowry articles but neither her father nor any of her brothers appeared as witness to corroborate the same.
(iii) It was a `Watta Satta' marriage. The sister of the respondent being minor at the time of her Nikah got the marriage with the brother of the petitioner dissolved. The instant suit was the result of the dissolution of the said marriage.
' Malik Muhammad Surkhuru, ex-member of the district council appeared as D.W. 3 and deposed that he patched up the matter between the parties and sent two persons namely Jahan son of Khudayar and Sultan son of Muhammad Ibrahim (the near relatives of the parties) for fetching the dowry articles and returned the same to the petitioner. Jahan appeared as D.W.2 and had deposed to the same effect. I have perused the evidence very carefully but have not been persuaded to take a different view. The petitioner had deposed that the purchase receipts were appended with the plaint but they were neither produced nor exhibited in evidence nor have been appended with the present constitutional petition.
4. In view of the above I do not find any substance in this petition, therefore, dismiss the same.