' ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J.---This Constitutional petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6-5-2008 and 10-3-2008 passed by the learned courts below whereby the suits filed by the respondents were decided in the following manners:-
(i) suit for dissolution of marriage was decreed;
(ii) suit for recovery of maintenance allowance was granted @ Rs,2,000 per month to respondent No,1 from the date of institution till her idat while respondent No,2 minor was granted Rs,2,000 from the date of institution till the age of puberty;
(iii) suit for recovery expenses of the minor was granted Rs,15,000;
(iv) and dowry articles Rs,3,60,620.
2. Both the parties being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree, preferred two independent appeals, the learned Appellate Court heard the arguments and disposed of both the appeals by a consolidated judgment dated 6-5-2008, hence this constitutional petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made issue-wise submission. As regards issue No,1, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner, as admitted by the respondent, is getting salary Rs,7.000 per month from the WAPDA, therefore, the maintenance allowance fixed by the learned courts below is excessive to the income of the petitioner. The learned counsel prayed that the petitioner is ready to maintain the minor but according to his income whereas the respondent No,1 is not entitled for any maintenance as she herself left the house of the petitioner. At the time of leaving the house of the petitioner, she took valuable articles and also brought Rs,27,000 so to this extent the findings of the learned Courts below be set aside.
4. While making submissions on issue No,2, the learned counsel contended that respondent No,1 failed to prove the fact of delivery of the dowry articles to her by her parents at the time of marriage and also the possession of the same with the petitioner, thus the findings recorded by the learned courts below are not only erroneous but also against the record available on the file. Next contended that the respondent herself has admitted while appearing in the witness-box that two lists were prepared and the later list as pointed out in the record was prepared on the asking of the father of the petitioner and even otherwise the respondent could not succeed to prove the dowry articles as per the list, therefore, she is not entitled for the claim made by her. Also contended that the petitioner has specifically asserted that few articles of dowry were given to the petitioner but those were returned to her and presently nothing is lying with the petitioner, out of the dowry articles claimed by the respondent. On this issue, the learned counsel lastly contended that the respondent No,1 has also failed to substantiate her claim regarding the dowry articles by placing in evidence the receipt thereof and if some receipts were produced, those are incorrect and product of fraud. The learned counsel submits that the findings on this issue drawn by the learned courts below are totally incorrect and based on surmises and conjectures. As regards, the issue No,3, learned counsel submits that the petitioner who is employee of the WAPDA time and again asked to respondent No,1 at the time of delivery of respondent No,1 to get herself admitted in the WAPDA Hospital to avoid the heavy expenses of the delivery but the respondent No,1 knowingly refused to accede to the genuine request of the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner was entitled to get medical facility free of costs from the WAPDA health services and the claim of the petitioner of the delivery charges is unfounded, therefore, the findings of the learned Courts below are also perversed. Reliance is placed on Mst. Rakhi v. Tanvir lqbal and others 2004 SCMR 1739, Muhammad Tayyab v. Mst. Bashiran, etc. (1992 ALD 74(1) and Abdul Fahim v. Mst. Shahnaz Begum (2) Additional District Judge-II, Kohat (2003 CLC 1450).
5. Conversely, the learned counsel for respondents submits that the respondent No,1 is entitled for the maintenance allowance as she was turned out from the house of the petitioner, who from the said date is living in the house of her parents alongwith the minor and further she is also taking care and looking after the minor who was admittedly born from the wedlock of the parties. As regards, the maintenance of the minor is concerned, the learned counsel submits that due to the price hike and inflation the minor is entitled for monthly maintenance of rupees not less than Rs,5,000. On issue No,2, the learned counsel rebutted the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, and submitted that respondent No,1 had successfully proved the delivery of the dowry articles at the time of marriage and also their possession with the petitioner, therefore, she is entitled for the recovery of the same. Learned counsel also contended that the respondent No,1 while appearing in the witness-box has explained and mentioned all the names of the articles so the findings recorded by the learned courts below are correct and in accordance with the record.
Regarding issue No,3, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner has himself admitted that the minor was born in the house of the parents of respondent No,1 so this is sufficient to prove the entitlement of respondent No,1 to claim the delivery expenses of the minor. Reliance is placed on Sheikh Muhammad Sadiq v. Elahi Bakhsh and 2 others (2006 SCMR 12), Pervez Alam v. Pakistan Dairy Products (Pvt.) Limited, Karachi and 2 others (2005 SCMR 1840) and Abu Bakar Muhammad Reza v. Secretary to Government of Punjab, Home Department and 3 others (PLD 2005 Lah. 370).
6. I have heard the learned Court for the parties and perused the record.
7. Both the learned courts below after appreciating the evidence and perusing the record available on the file reached to the concurrent conclusion that the minor-respondent No,2 is entitled to get the maintenance allowance @ Rs,2,000 per month. The learned Appellate Court has rightly granted 10% annual increase in the allowance granted to the minor. As regards, respondent No,1, the respondent. Is also entitled to recover the maintenance on the ground that there is no rebuttal of the claim of the respondent No,1 on the record that she was turned out from the house of the petitioner without any cause and reason and specially she is also looking after and bringing up the minor so she in any case is entitled for the maintenance decreed by the learned courts below. Even otherwise, there is no rebuttal to the statement of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has failed to rebut this claim of respondent No,
1. As regards the claim of A respondent No,1 about recovery of dowry articles, the respondent herself appeared in the witness-box and had given details of the articles given to her at the time of marriage. It is pertinent to mention here that the detail of the articles were given by respondent No,1 on the question put by the petitioner during the . Course of cross-examination so this is sufficient to establish that the respondent No,1 has succeeded to prove her claim of the dowry articles. There is also no rebuttal of the stance taken by respondent No,1 on the record that the dowry articles were given to respondent No,1 at the time of marriage, those were also brought in the house of the petitioner and are still lying with him. The witnesses appeared in support of the claim of respondent No,1 have also successfully proved so there is no reason available on the record not to grant decree claimed by respondents No,1 as regards the recovery of dowry articles. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent failed to produce on record the receipts of the articles and the proper list is repelled on the simple ground that in our society normally it is very difficult for the bride or her family to keep the receipts of the dowry articles for indefinite period. In fact it is to be seen while recording the findings whether the claimant has succeeded to prove the dowry articles. In this case, the respondent while giving the detail of the dowry articles has fully succeeded, therefore, the findings of the learned Appellate Court are correct. The learned Appellate Court while deciding issue No,2 again re-examined and reappraised the evidence and other material available on the file and finally concluded that the petitioner is entitled to recover the dowry articles and in lieu thereof Rs,3,60,620. The enhancement/ modification made by the learned Appellate Court is upheld.
8. As regards, the findings on issue No,3, the learned counsel for the petitioner has himself admitted that the respondent refused to accept the offer of the petitioner to be admitted in the WAPDA Hospital and the minor was born in the house of respondent No,l's parents so the respondent No,1 is entitled to recover the maternity expenses of the minor from the petitioner. The claim decreed by the learned courts below is correct and is upheld. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner having no nexus with the facts of the case and are distinguished with the facts of the case in hand. The High Court while exercising the Constitutional jurisdiction should remain slow in interfering in the factual controversy unless the findings recorded by the learned courts below are result of misreading and non-reading of evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has.
C also observed in Sheikh Muhammad Sadiq v. Elahi Bakhsh and 2 others (2006 SCMR 12) that High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction is not supposed to dilate upon the controversial question of fact and to interfere in the concurrent findings on such question unless those are based on misreading and non-reading of evidence. In the instant case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any jurisdictional defect, legal infirmity, material irregularity, misreading and non-reading of evidence with the concurrent finding recorded by the learned courts below, therefore, there is hardly any reason to interfere with the concurrent conclusion.
9. Resultantly, I see no force in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 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.