' HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.---This order shall dispose of this writ petition (Writ Petition No,8117 of 2009, titled "Mst. Adan Mushtaq v. Shahid Majeed") as well as Writ Petition No,9475 of 2009 (Shahid Majeed v. ADJ and Mst. Adan Mushtaq and others) as both of them arise out of the same judgment and decree dated 27-08-2009, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that petitioner Mst. Adan Mushtaq was married to Shahid Majeed on 6-4-2007. In the beginning the relations between the spouses remained cordial, but later on the attitude of respondent Shahid Majeed with the petitioner changed with the passage of time, which gave rise to litigation between the spouses. The petitioner lady filed a suit for dissolution of marriage, for recovery of dowry articles, or in the alternative price of Rs.6,00,605 for her maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 10,000 per month. The respondent filed written statement by controverting the allegations and claims in the plaint of the petitioner by contending that while deserting him the plaintiff-lady took all her dowry articles with her to her parent's house.
3. On 25-3-2008, the claim of the petitioner for dissolution of marriage was decreed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Sahiwal on the basis of Khula.
4. From the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following three issues:-
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover maintenance allowance, if so at what rate and for which period? OPP
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover articles of dowry according to the detail given in para-7 of the Plaint or in alternative Rs.6,00,605?OPP
(3) Relief.
5. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence of the parties vide judgment and decree dated 30-3-2009 held the petitioner-plaintiff entitled to recover maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.2000 per month for the Iddat Period of three months. As regards the dowry articles, she was held entitled to recover articles as described in para 7 of the plaint or in the alternative their estimated value of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lac). She was held disentitled to recover the gold ornaments.
6. The petitioner-plaintiff filed an appeal before the learned District Judges, Sahiwal, seeking modification in the decree and judgment dated 30-3-2009 praying for decree of the suit in toto as claimed by her. On the other hand, the respondent Shahid Majeed also challenged the judgment and decree of the learned Judge, Family Court by filing a separate appeal. Through a consolidated judgment and decree dated 27-8-2009 the learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal, dismissed both the appeals, which judgment has been challenged by petitioner lady Mst. Adan Mushtaq through the instant writ petition, whereas the judgment-debtor Shahid Majeed has also called in question the said judgment of the learned first appellate Court as well as the judgment and decree of the learned Court through Writ Petition No,9475 of 2009.
7. Before me, the learned counsel for the petitioner lady in Writ Petition No,8117 of 2009 contends that the learned trial Court as well as the learned lower appellate Court illegally ignored and discarded the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner in support of her claim for dowry articles. Further submits that no objection was raised on behalf of the respondent side while receipts Exh. P-1 to 4 for purchase of gold ornaments were exhibited. Now at this stage he cannot raise objection with regard to these documents in writ jurisdiction. Places reliance on the cases reported as Abdullah and 3 others v. Abdul Karim and others (PLD 1968 SC 140) and Malik Din and another v. Muhammad Aslam (PLD 1969 SC 136). Further submitted that the petitioner-plaintiff mentioned each and every article of dowry not only in the plaint but also in the list of the said articles; that the impugned judgment and decree to the extent of return of gold ornaments is against law and fact; that the learned trial Court has illegally not decreed the suit of the petitioner in toto.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/judgment-debtor also contended that the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below are against law and facts and result of non- reading and misreading of evidence; that P.W.1, petitioner lady admitted in her cross-examination that she could not narrate the prices of the articles; that no list of dowry articles was prepared at the time of Nikah; that the evidence of the plaintiff lady is full of material discrepancies which should not have been relied upon; that the plaintiff lady without any justification left the house of the respondent-husband.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the file. The petitioner-plaintiff was expelled by the respondent from his house about 1-1/2 months before institution of the suit and her divorce was effected on 25-3-2008. She could not offer any valid proof regarding the income of the respondent. The learned trial court has rightly held her entitled to the maintenance allowance for the iddat period of three months at the rate of Rs.2000 per month deciding issue No,1 in her favour.
The petitioner in her cross-examination as P.W. 1 stated that she did not know the exact prices of the dowry articles as they were purchased by her father. P.W.2, Munshi of Awan Minnie Goods Transport, in the witness-box stated that two vehicles were hired from the said Goods Transport to carry the dowry articles from the petitioner's father's house. The receipts of gold ornaments Exh.P.1 to 4 pertain to the year 2004 and do not contain proper detail about the weight and rate of gold ornaments. Therefore, they have rightly not been relied upon by the learned trial Court and the said gold ornaments have been rightly excluded from the dowry articles.
10. From the evidence, it is proved that the dowry articles mentioned in para-7 of the paint, except the gold ornaments, were given to the petitioner by her parents. But, out of the said remaining articles some are of daily-use and with the passage of time their value has decreased. Therefore, the learned trial court has rightly held the petitioner entitled to the estimated value of Rs.2,00,000.
The learned "Additional District Judge has rightly dismissed both the appeals, one filed by the petitioner and the other by respondent Shahid Majeed. Findings of the learned Judge, Family Court are based on cogent reasons which are upheld. The concurrent findings of both the Courts below need no interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction.
11. For the reasons discussed above, both the writ petitions are dismissed.