ANWAR-UL-HAQ PANNU N, J. --- Through this writ petition, under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Mst. Nasreen Akhtar, petitioner has called in question the judgment and decree dated 1.3.2008 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Sahiwal and the judgment dated 31.5.2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge whereby the petitioner's suit for the recovery of dowry articles, has been partly decreed.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case are that petitioner 's marriage was solemnized with respondent on 9.1.2005. Unfortunately the relationship between the spouses, could not remain cordial and leading of happy material life between the spouses became impossible. The petitioner brought a suit on 4.10.2006 for the recovery of dowry articles, before the Judge Family Court, Sahiwal praying for a decree in her favour and against respondent, Allah Ditta for the recovery of dowry articles or in alternate for the recovery of Rs. 5,54,850/- as value of the dowry articles. The respondent did not appear and consequently was proceeded ex parte. The ex parte evidence of the petitioner was recorded by the learned. Trial Court wherein she gave the detail of dowry articles given to her by her relatives at the time of her marriage with respondent, and also deposed that her dowry articles were lying in the house of defendant-respondent but despite her demand he has failed to return the same to her. She also produced certain receipts, Mark-A to Mark-F which are available on the file. The learned Trial Judge thereafter vide his judgment and decree dated 1.3.2008 proceeded to decree the suit of the petitioner and directed respondent to pay Rs. 30,000/- as amount of the dowry articles. The petitioner feeling herself aggrieved filed an appeal under Section 14 of the Pest Pakistan Family Courts Act, before the learned District Judge, which has also been dismissed by him vide judgment and decree dated 31,5.2008, hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the Courts below have misread and misconstrued the evidence available on record and despite holding that the petitioner was given dowry articles at the time of her marriage have illegally fixed the amount of Rs. 30,000/- as value of the dowry articles, which are presently lying in the house of the petitioner and prays for decreeing her suit, as prayed for in her plaint.
4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent has argued that both the Courts below have passed the judgments, while properly r appreciating even the ex parte evidence of the petitioner, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed, it is submitted by her that the findings of both the Courts below regarding receipt produced by the petitioner with the same do not bear the name of any purchaser, hence have been correctly not relied upon by Courts below.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge Sahiwal vide his impugned judgment on the ground that the same was barred by limitation.
I have also gone through the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower Court as well as the evidence of the petitioner I find that no jurisdictional defect or misreading has taken place.
Although the petitioner herself appeared as PW-1 before the learned Trial Court and gave details of the dowry articles given to her at the time of marriage but the receipts produced by her as Mark-A to Mark-F do not disclose the name of the purchaser, therefore, no reliance could have been placed on the same. Although in the family suits the provisions of CPC and that of the Qanun-e- Shahadat are not applicable and the petitioner was not required to prove the above documents, in the way the same are required to be proved in the civil suits.
6. Since the appeal of the petitioner having been dismissed being barred by limitation as well as the decision of the learned Trial Court being based on proper appreciation of evidence, therefore, there is nothing on record to 'interfere with the impugned judgment while exercising the Constitutional jurisdiction. For what has been discussed herein above this petition fails and the same is dismissed. .