TARIQ JAVAID, J. This petition has been filed against the judgments and decrees passed by the Additional District Judge Jatoi, District Muzaffargarh whereby suit of the respondent No. 3 was decreed in entirety. The learned counsel for the petitioner has maintained that the Family `Court had no jurisdiction to decide the issue pertaining to the restoration of possession of the landed property. According to the learned counsel the said issue could only be decided by the Civil Court whereas in impugned judgment the decree for possession has been granted by the District Judge in appeal arising out of a family suit. It is also maintained that the dowry articles were alleged to be valued at Rs. 2,05,700/-, which could have not been decreed in entirety. Both the parties has used the articles, which were old household implements and could not be valued at the purchase price.
It is alleged that -the marriage was solemnized around 14 years ago and the value of the said articles must have diminished considerably.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment and maintained that the impugned judgment does not call for any interference in writ jurisdiction as no illegality has been committed by the first Appellate Court.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. The record reveals that the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff except to the extent that she was held entitled to recovery Rs. 49,000/- on account of dowry articles. On appeal the whole of the suit was decreed and the amount of compensation for articles was also enhanced to Rs. 2,05,700/- as claimed in the plaint. The learned first Appellate Court has gone through the evidence on record and discussed each and every issue in detail. The respondent No. 3 appeared as PW-1 in her own evidence and deposed that a six marlas plot was give to her as dower by the petitioner and the parents of respondent No. 3 purchased adjacent three marlas plot. Thereafter the respondent No. 3 constructed a nine marlas house. The learned Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the possession of the plot, which was given to the respondent No. 3 by the petitioner in consideration of dower, could lawfully be recovered through a family suit. Similarly, the parcel of three marlas land adjacent to the same plot can also be considered as a dowry as the same was purchased by the father of the respondent No. 3. It also stands established from the testimony of witnesses that the husband forcibly evicted the wife out of the house and he is living with his second wife in the house owned by the respondent No. 3. The second marriage is alleged to have been contracted by the petitioner without consent of the respondent No. 3. The testimony of the petitioner with regard 2 to the dowry articles and herself having been evicted from her own property remained un- shattered.
5. With regard to dowry articles the respondent No. 3 has successfully established her claim, however the learned Trial Court awarded only Rs. 49,000/- in lieu of the dowry articles and the remaining claim was turned down. This is too meager a sum and it does not appear to be justifiable. On the other hand, the learned first Appellate Court has decreed the whole amount of dowry articles, which appears to be another extreme. The dowry articles were given to the respondent No. 3 at the time of wedding in 1996. Until separation both of the spouses have enjoyed the dowry articles, which must have diminished in value considerably. In these circumstances, allowing the whole amount of Rs. 2,05,7001- would not be justifiable. It would be appropriate to adopt some half way house approach in which the rights of the parties are not infringed.
Apparently both the Courts have gone from one extreme to another while passing a decree with regard to issue of dowry articles. Therefore, this petition is allowed to the extent that the judgment and decree is varied and compensation of dowry articles is reduced from Rs. 2,05,700/- to Rs.
1,00,000/-(Rupees one lac only). No other illegality has been pointed out in the impugned order.
6. With the above modification in decree for compensation awarded by the first Appellate Court, this petition is allowed.. .