'HAFIZ ABDUR REHMAN ANSARI, J.--- Humera Naseem daughter of Rehmat An, through this writ petition assails the judgment and decree dated 17-6-2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Burewala, District Vehari, whereby the appeal filed by Elahi Bakhsh, respondent No,2 against the judgment and decree dated 11-3-2009 of the learned Family Court has been accepted.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, as narrated in this petition, are that petitioner Mst. Humera Naseem was married to respondent No,2 Elahi Bakhsh on 7-1-2005, but the relations between the spouses were not cordial; she filed three suits before the Family Court at Burewala, one for dissolution of marriage, second for recovery of dowry articles valuing Rs,89,000 and the third for recovery of Rs,25,000 as delivery expenses for the birth of a child; the respondent filed written statement, issues were framed. On failure of the pre-trial proceedings, suit of the petitioner for dissolution of marriage was decreed on the basis of Khula vide judgment and decree dated 19-9-2007. As regards the other two suits, the parties produced their evidence. Ultimately, vide judgment and decree dated 18-3-2008 petitioner's suit for recovery of dowry articles was decreed and the suit for recovery of delivery expenses for the birth of the child was dismissed. On appeal filed by the respondent No,2 against the judgment and decree dated 18-3-2008, the learned Additional District Judge remanded the case to the trial Court for re-writing the judgment. Learned trial Court again vide judgment dated 11-3-2009 upheld its earlier judgment but with slight modification as suit for recovery of dowry articles was decreed to the tune of Rs,70,000 instead of Rs,89,000 and again the suit to the extent of recovery of delivery charges was dismissed. Again the respondent No,2 filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree dated 11-3-2009 and the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 17-6-2009 accepted the appeal of the respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below are at variance; that the learned lower appellate court solely on the ground that the list of dowry articles Exh.P.1 was not exhibited and it does not bear the signs of the Presiding Officer of the Court/trial Court allowed the appeal of the respondent. Submits that in the statement of P.W.2 in cross-examination she stated that it is incorrect that the list of articles is fabricated and concocted.
4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently supports the maintenance of the judgment passed by the learned first appellate Court that the petitioner P.W.1 did not produce the receipts for purchase of the dowry articles to' show when and from where her parents purchased the said articles. States that the plaintiff did not fulfil the requirements of section 7(3) of the Family Courts Act, 1964; she was duty-bound under the said provisions of law to give a copy 'of the list to the defendant. Learned counsel for the respondent raised an objection that the plaintiff- lady did not hand over the said receipt of purchase to the defendant. Submits that the list of dowry articles should be read with the evidence produced by the plaintiff; that the plaintiff-lady did not narrate or mention exactly in evidence the articles which were mentioned in the list of dowry articles; that the ornaments weighing two Tolas are not mentioned in the list of said dowry articles but includes in the statement of P.W.1. Submits that at serial No,9 only Rs,100 is written but for which article it is not mentioned; that the marginal witnesses of the list of dowry articles were not produced; that price of the dowry articles mentioned in the list are exaggerated.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the file. In this case the pivotal issue is issue No,1 with regard to the recovery of dowry articles. The learned trial Court rightly decided this issue in favour of the petitioner and rightly decreed the suit to the extent of Rs,70,000 as value of the said dowry articles. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that the list Exh.P.1 does not bear the signs of the learned trial Court has no weight. The list was exhibited at the time of recording of the statement of P.W.1/lady plaintiff without any objection from the opposite side, and later on such objection as to the admissibility of the list cannot be taken or entertained. If the list could not be signed by the learned Presiding Officer when it is very much mentioned in the judgment of the learned trial Court that it is exhibited as P.1, on account of mistake of the Presiding Officer not to sign Exh.P.1 the party cannot be penalized. In her evidence while appearing in the witness box as P.W.1, the petitioner-plaintiff gave the detail of dowry articles given to her by her parents at the time of her marriage. The learned first appellate Court wrongly reserved the well- reasoned finding of the learned trial Court on issue No,1
6. For the reasons discussed above, this writ petition is allowed, the judgment and decree of the learned Judge, Family Court dated 11-3-2009 with regard to B recovery of Rs,70,000 as value of dowry articles is restored by setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge dated 17-6-2009.