M.A. ZAFAR, J. --- Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed a suit for dissolution of marriage stating therein that parties were married on 19.02.2002 at Rawalpindi in accordance with Muslim rites and Nikah was performed against consideration of Rs. 50,000/- which was prompt dower and a sum of Rs. 1,000/-was fixed as maintenance allowance to be paid by the petitioner/defendant to respondent No. 1/plaintiff. According to the plaint a plot measuring 10 marlas and 5 tola gold ornaments was also agreed to be given to respondent No. 1/plaintiff by petitioner/defendant. After the marriage parties live together and respondent No. 1/defendant performed her matrimonial obligation and it transpired thereafter that petitioner/defendant was already a married man having two daughters. According to the case of defendant/plaintiff the petitioner/defendant used to commit atrocities upon her and he wanted to usurp her property and had misappropriated a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and finally ousted her from his house after giving her beating.-
2. Defendant No. 1/plaintiff also filed another suit for recovery of dowry amount and maintenance allowance by contending that at the time of marriage the dowry amount was fixed as Rs. 50,000/- and 5 tolas gold ornaments worth Rs. 40,000/- and the house situated at Baste Afghana Taxila consisting of two rooms measuring 10 marlas valuing Rs. 2,00,000/- and the dower amount noted above has not been paid by respondent No. 1/defendant and she was ousted from the house forcibly. It is also the case of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff that she was ousted by the petitioner/ defendant on 29.05.2003 and failed to provide for maintenance allowance. Thereafter she claimed that the monthly income of the petitioner/defendant is Rs. 20,000/-. Out of the divergent pleading of the parties the learned Judge Family Court framed the following issues:---
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for maintenance allowance, if so at what rate and for which period? OPP
(ii) Whether the plaintiff has taken away Rs. 20,000/- five tolas of gold ornaments? OPD
(iii) Whether the plaintiff has taken away the house hold articles? OPD
(iv) Whether at the time of marriage five tolas of gold ornaments were given to the plaintiff by the defendant in lieu of dower amount ? OPD
(v) Whether the objection pertaining to amount and golden ornaments made by the defendants is baseless and made only to pressurize the plaintiff? OPP
(vi) Relief.
3. After settlement of issues vide order dated 24.04.2006 the learned Judge Family Court decreed the suit of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff to the extent of dissolution of marriage in her favour against the petitioner/defendant while invoking the powers u/s. 10(4) of the Family Courts Act and in lieu of dower amount which the plaintiff had not received.
4. After the above-mentioned order the learned Judge Family Court reframed the following issues on 24.04.2006:---
(i) Whether the plaintiff has taken away Rs. 20,000 and five tolas gold ornaments? OPD.
(ii) Whether the plaintiff has taken away the house hold articles? OPD
(iii) Whether at the time of marriage five tolas of gold ornaments were given to the plaintiff by the defendant in lieu of dower amount? OPD
(iv) Whether the objection pertaining to amount and golden ornaments made by the defendant is baseless and made only to pressurize the plaintiff? OPP
(v) Relief.
5. During the trial respondent No. 1 produced her affidavit as Ex.PI she also produced copy of the Nikah Nama as Mark-A whereas petitioner/defendant produced his affidavit as Ex.DI and Judge Family Court after appraising the evidence decreed the suit vide judgment dated 20.10.2007 in favour of the respondent No. 1 for the recovery of maintenance allowance and house situated at Basti Afghana Taxilla as dower amount or in lieu thereof Rs. 2,00,000/-. However, the claim of the petitioner/defendant to recover Rs. 20,000/- and house-hold articles unless he files a civil suit for the recovery of these articles. However, petitioner/defendant was held entitled to recover 5 tolas gold ornaments from the respondent No. 1 which he gave to her in lieu of the dowry amount.
6. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2007 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Rawalpindi petitioner filed appeal on 25.07.2008 which was dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 3.09.2008 holding the same to be time- barred.
7. The operative part of the judgment is as under:- "Admittedly, the impugned judgment and decree was passed on 20.10.2007 and the appeal in hand against the same was preferred on .25.07.2008 i.e. After the lapse of nine months and five days. The time spent for getting the attested copies by the appellant is five days only. In this manner, the appeal in hand is miserably time-barred by eight months. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner has neither given any valid and convincing reason in the application for condonation of delay nor has successfully proved in his argument that the delay in filing the memorandum of appeal by the appellant was caused by the reasons beyond his control. It is well- established law that each and every day of the period of delay has to be explained by the appellant in order to get the desired relief but in this case, the appellant as well as his learned counsel' have miserably failed to give any plausible cause and reason for the miserable delay in filing the memorandum of appeal. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is hereby dismissed, having no force in it."
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record it is evident that the impugned judgment and decree was passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Rawalpindi on 20.10.2007 particularly before the, learned District Judge, Rawalpindi was preferred on 25.07.2008 i.e. After the lapse of nine months and five days. Only five days were spent in getting the certified copies of the judgment and decree of. The learned Judge Family Court and thus the appeal before the learned District Judge was time-barred by eight months. The Addl. District Judge being not satisfied with the contents of the application for condonation of delay dismissed the same. The said application has already been annexed with this petition and I have gone through the same and the main reason for condonation the delay is that the compromise between the parties took place and due to that the delay occurred in filing the appeal. It is well-established law that each and every day of period of delay has to be explained by the appellant in order to get desire relief but in this case the ground urged for condonation of delay is neither plausible nor reasonable and when the Court of appeal has not condoned the delay this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction cannot interfere in the same.
9. Resultantly for the fore going reasons, there is no force in this petition and the same is dismissed. .