The petitioner brought a suit to recover the dowry articles amounting to Rs, 130,850/- and maintenance allowance on the ground that the dowry articles given to her at the time of marriage are lying with the respondent as the petitioner joined him at his house, thereafter, the respondent after some time because of strained relations, expelled her from his house and has refused to accept the claim of the petitioner.
2. The suit was opposed by the respondent, who while filing the written statement denied the claims of the petitioner. The learned trial Court out of the pleadings, framed issues, recorded evidence and finally decreed the suit, whereby the petitioner was held entitled to recover an amount of Rs,80,000/- in lieu of dowry articles and Rs,6000/- as maintenance for Iddit period.
3. Being aggrieved thereof, the respondent filed an appeal, wherein the learned appellate Court disallowed the claim of the petitioner to the extent to recover the dowry articles and findings on the issue of maintenance were maintained. Hence this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned trial Court after careful appreciation of the record and particularly the evidence led by the parties reached to a fair and just conclusion and delivered a well reasoned judgment but the learned appellate Court set aside the same without assigning any reasons. Next contended that the learned appellate Court has mainly relied upon the offer on oath by the respondent, which was never acted upon, therefore, the findings of the learned appellate Court in any case are not sustainable in law.
5. Conversely the learned counsel for the respondent supported the findings recorded by the learned appellate Court.
6. Heard.
7. In this case, the petitioner in support of her claim appeared as PW. 1 and categorically stated that the dowry articles valuing Rs, 130,850/- were given to her and the respondent despite demands have refused to return the same. In support of the petitioner, PW.2 appeared, who fully corroborated the stance of the petitioner. Both the above witnesses were cross-examined by the respondent but as appears from the record has failed to rebut or shake the stance taken by them in their examination-in-chief. It has not been denied by the respondent that the petitioner is an educated lady and running a school, therefore, it can be presumed that the dowry articles were given to the petitioner. In some cases, some times the presumption are stronger than the realities.
Strangely in this case the grand mother of the petitioner appeared as witness and stated that no dowry articles were given to the petitioner but very interestingly, the learned counsel for the respondent has admitted that the litigation between the grand-mother of the petitioner and father of the petitioner is pending, therefore, such type of the witness can hardly be believed. The learned trial Court, who recorded the evidence, after careful appreciations of the record reached to a fair and just decision and awarded Rs,80,000/-, keeping in view the wear and tear of the articles to the petitioner. The learned appellate Court has mainly decided the appeal on the ground that an offer on oath on the Holy Quran was given by the respondent and the same was refused, in any circumstances, this cannot be made a ground to dismiss the claim of the petitioner. For the foregoing reasons the petitioner has succeeded to prove her claim to the extent of recovery of dowry articles.
8. As regards the recover of maintenance, the said issue has already been concluded by the learned Courts below, therefore, there is no need to comment. Resultantly this petition is allowed.
The judgment and decree of the learned appellate Court is set aside and that of the learned trial Court is affirmed. No order as to costs.