' HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.---Through the instant writ petition, petitioners Mst. Saeed Bibi and her minor son Majid Hussain seek setting aside of judgment and decree dated 29-8-2009, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jampur, District Rajanpur, partly accepting the appeal of respondent No,3 Muhammad Sajjad, dismissing the suit of the petitioner to the extent of recovery of dowry articles.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner No,1 Mst. Saeed Bibi, wife of respondent No,3 Muhammad Sajjad, along with her minor son Majid Hussain, petitioner No,2 filed a suit against respondent No,3 for the recovery of maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs,2000 per month for petitioner No,1 and Rs,1000 per month for petitioner No,2 and also claimed arrears of the past maintenance allowance for 16 months, as well as for recovery of dowry articles valuing Rs,1,06,000.
It was averred in the suit that respondent No,3 was married with petitioner No,1 on 17-11-2006 and out of the said wedlock petitioner No,2 Majid Hussain was born, who is presently living with petitioner No,1; the articles described in the plaint were also given to her as dowry by her parents at the time of marriage; in the beginning the relations between the spouses remained cordial but thereafter the relations became strained and therefore the respondent turned out of his house the petitioners and did not pay any maintenance allowance.
3. The respondent contested the suit of the petitioners and filed written statement thereto, wherein it was contended that petitioner earlier also filed a similar suit; the respondent also filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights and on account of compromise the petitioner had withdrawn her suit for dowry articles and the suit of the respondent for conjugal rights was decreed; that the instant suit had been filed by the petitioners just to harass him and that she wanted to embezzle his valuables worth Rs, 1,60,000.
4. After failure of the pre-trial reconciliation proceedings, the learned trial Court/Judge, Family Court, Jampur, out of the divergent pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get maintenance allowance, if so, at what rate and for what period? OPP
(2) Whether the plaintiff No,1 is entitled to get decree for dowry articles on the basis of facts as mentioned in the plaint? OPP
(3) Relief.
5. In order to prove her case, petitioner No,1 Mst. Saeed Bibi appeared as P. W.1 as well as she produced her paternal grandfather Khan Muhammad as P.W.2. They both supported the claim as given in the plaint. To disprove the claim of the petitioners and in support of his own claim Muhammad Sajjad, respondent No,3/defendant himself 'appeared as D. W.1. He also produced document Exh.D-1 copy of the decision recorded on the basis of compromise effected between the parties in an earlier suit for recovery of maintenance allowance and recovery of dowry articles filed by the petitioners against the respondent.
6. Learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 9-7-2009 while deciding Issue No,1 as to the entitlement of the petitioners to the maintenance allowance as claimed by them, observed that Exh.D-1, copy of the decision in the earlier suit of the petitioners, revealed that the earlier suit was filed by Mst. Saeed Bibi on 20-10-2008, which was decided on the statements of the parties on 3-2- 2009. In the compromise it was settled that the respondent will keep the petitioner in a separate house and will pay maintenance, but later on no such legal demands/conditions were fulfilled by the respondent. Therefore, keeping in view the income of the respondent, each of the petitioners- plaintiffs was held entitled to receive maintenance of Rs,1000 per month and the issue was decided in favour of the petitioners. Relying on the statements of P.W.1 and 2 the learned trial Court decided Issue No,2 regarding entitlement of the petitioner to the dowry articles in her favour holding her entitled to recover the said articles or their value excluding 10 per cent as depreciation on the articles, except on the gold ornaments. The appeal filed by the respondent against the said judgment and decree of the trial Court was dismissed to the extent of recovery of maintenance allowance, but to the extent of dowry articles, the appeal was accepted and the judgment and decree of the trial Court to that extent was set aside.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record on file as well as have minutely gone through both the judgments. Before this Court the only point in controversy is whether the petitioner is entitled to recover the dowry articles. While reversing the finding of the learned trial Court on the said issue, i.e Issue No,2 the learned Additional District Judge observed that:-- "It was incumbent upon the respondent-plaintiff to produce cogent and confidence-inspiring evidence to prove her contention. Neither she produced receipts showing purchase of dowry articles by her parents before her marriage nor she produced any goldsmith from whom the golden ornaments were purchased and the other shopkeepers from whom the other dowry articles were purchased."
' The plaintiff-petitioner while appearing as P.W.1 in her statement has made a mention of the dowry articles given to her by her parents at the time of marriage. Further, during her cross- examination she denied the suggestion put to her by the opposite learned counsel that she had taken the dowry articles with her to her parents house while leaving the house of her husband, which fact also proves her claim of dowry articles. Therefore, if receipts were not produced, it is not of well significance. Further, it is observed that usually in villages people do not care to have receipts from shop-keepers for the purchase of items nor the shopkeepers usually come forward merely on the asking of their customers to make their statement as witness in law Courts.
8. In view of the discussion made above, the writ petition is allowed, the finding on Issue No,2 of the learned first appellate Court is set aside and that of the learned trial Court is restored.