' A NWAR-UL-HAQ PANNU N, J.--The petitioner through this constitutional petition has called in question consolidated judgment and decree dated 19-10-2004 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Kot Addu by virtue of which the consolidated judgment of the learned Judge Family Court dated 3-11-2003 was set aside and the suits filed by respondent No,1 for recovery of dower and dowry articles of worth Rs,44,500 were decreed by accepting her appeals.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of instant writ petition are that the petitioner was married with respondent No,1 in 1998. The parties performed their marital obligation but no issue was born out of the wedlock. Unfortunately the relations between the spouses became strained and ultimately respondent No,1 filed suit for dissolution of marriage on 24-10-2001, which was decreed by the learned Judge Family Court, Kot Addu, vide ex parte judgment dated 12-2-2002. Thereafter respondent No,1 filed two separate suits, (i) for recovery of dower and (ii) for dowry articles worth Rs,44,500. The petitioner contested the suits, filed his written statements wherein he has controverted the assertions made in the plaints. Learned Judge family Court, from the divergent pleadings of the parties, framed following issues:--
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of dower as prayed for? OPP
(2) Whether the decree for 'recovery of articles of dowry can be passed in favour of plaintiff? OPP
(3) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file her respective suit? OPD
(4) Whether the entries in the Nikahnama about dower are wrong against law and facts, fictitious?
OPD
(5) Relief.
' The parties led their respective evidence in support of their claims. Learned Judge Family Court after hearing the arguments proceeded to dismiss both the suits vide its consolidated judgment dated 3-11-2003. Respondent No,1 being aggrieved of the judgment and decree of the learned Judge Family Court filed appeals, which were accepted by the learned Addl. District Judge, Kot Addu vide consolidated judgment dated 19-10-2004, resultantly the consolidated judgment and decree of the Judge Family Court dated 3-11-2003 was set aside and the suits of respondent No,1 for recovery of dower and dowry articles were decreed. Hence this writ petition by the petitioner assailing consolidated judgment and decrees of the learned Addl. District Judge, Kot Addu.
3. Today none on behalf of respondent No,1 has turned up despite repeated calls, hence respondent No,1 is proceeded against ex parte. Since this family matter is hanging fire for the last four years, therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to argue the case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Addl. District Judge failed to appreciate the case expressed by the parties, as such the impugned judgment suffers from the defect of misreading and non-reading of evidence. He has also submitted that the learned Judge Family Court rightly dismissed the suits of respondent No,1 but the learned Appellate Court has decreed the same without any solid reasoning, hence the judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge is not sustainable. Learned counsel has specifically referred columns Nos.13 & 14 of Nikahnama to contend that no amount of dower was written in the Nikahnama but the learned Addl. District Judge has over looked this material aspect. He has added that no list of dowry articles was handed over to the petitioner and mentioning of the dowry articles in the plaint is an afterthought.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner it is straightway observed that so far as suit for recovery of dowry articles filed by respondent No,1 is concerned, learned District Judge has passed a well reasoned judgment after properly appreciating the evidence produced by both the parties. Respondent No,1 while appearing as P.W.1 has narrated the details of the dowry articles given to her by her parents at the time of marriage. Despite lengthy cross-examination no serious dent could have been caused in her evidence. Learned Judge Family Court failed to appreciate the evidence of the respondent in this regard. Learned District Judge with valid reasoning has decreed the suit of respondent No,1 for the recovery of dowry articles to the tune of Rs,44,500. It a common custom in our society that the people like to give necessary dowry articles to the bride at the time of her marriage. The appellate Court, therefore, rightly came to the conclusion that the claim of respondent No,1 regarding her dowry articles is neither exorbitant nor exaggerated. Even otherwise perusal of the written statement filed by the petitioner in the suit for dowry articles reveals that he has candidly admitted the existence of dowry articles although he has naively tried to refute the claim of respondent No,1 by stating that in fact he spent the money for the purchase of the dowry articles of respondent No,1 at the time of her marriage. In view of the above discussion, the judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge to the extent of recovery of dowry articles is held to be unexceptional and does not warrant any interference by this Court in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, hence writ petition to that extent is dismissed.
6. As far claim for the recovery of dower of respondent No,1 is concerned, judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge is not sustainable on the ground that A admittedly respondent No,1 obtained a decree for dissolution of marriage on the basis of `Khula', which fact is evident even from her pleadings.
Provisions of para 320 of the Mohamedan Law by D.F. Mulla's are fully applicable to the present controversy, which reads as under:-- "320. Effect of Khula 'and Mubar' at divorce.---Unless it is otherwise provided by the contract, a divorce effected by Khula' or Mubarat operates as a release by the wife of her dower, but it does not affect the liability of the husband to maintain her during her Iddat, or to maintain his children by her."
' Therefore, keeping in view the principles of Islamic Law governing the divorce, wherein it is well settled that a lady seeking decree for dissolution of marriage on the basis of 'Khula' is required to return the gains taken by her from the husband and she is not entitled to the dower amount and renders herself to be disentitled A to the recovery of any other consideration. After perusing Nikahnama (Exh.P.I) I am in agreement with the leamed counsel for the petitioner that there is no mention of the dower amount in the relevant columns of Nikahnama particularly when the petitioner has seriously, at the very inception of the proceedings, challenged the genuineness of the said document on the plank that the same are result- of interpolation and collusion by respondent No,l with the Nikah Registrar. Since respondent No,l herself obtained the decree of divorce on the basis of 'Khula', therefore, it is held that she cannot claim for the recovery of dower amount from the petitioner.
7. For what has been discussed herein above, it is held that the suit filed by respondent No, 1 for recovery of dower was rightly dismissed by the leamed Judge Family Court and the judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge is result of misreading and non-reading of evidence on record, therefore, the same is not sustainable. Resultantly, the writ petition to that extent is accepted and the judgment of the leamed Addl. District Judge decreeing the suit of respondent No, 1 for recovery of dower is set aside and that of the leamed Judge Family Court to the extent is restored, whereby the suit of respondent No, 1 for recovery of dower was dismissed. .