' Ms. JAMILA JAHANOOR ASLAM, J.---Present writ petition is the result of being aggrieved of judgments/decrees of the Courts below dated 9-9-2003 and 16-2-2004.
2. Background of this matter is that the petitioner and respondent No,1 were marital on 25-3-2001.
The petitioner claims that she was turned out of the martial abode on 7-7-2001 and subsequently divorced by respondent No,1 on 29-9-2001. Thereafter the petitioner then was constrained to file two suits, one for recovery of her dowry articles and the other for recovery of maintenance allowance. Both the suits were consolidated and the consolidated judgment/decree dated 9-9- 2003 was passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Gujar Khan wherein the suits of the petitioner were partially decreed in her favour. In the judgment and decree dated 9-9-2003, the Family Court had accepted the list of dowry articles presented by respondent as Exh.D3 and the list presented by the petitioner Exh.P1 was not accepted. The petitioner was allowed maintenance allowance 2000 per month for the period of Iddat. Both the parties were aggrieved of this order and preferred appeals. The petitioner claimed that allowing her recovery of dowry articles, apropos Exh.D3 is not correct and that the learned Judge Family Court had not read the evidence. Respondent No,1 had appealed against the quantum of maintenance allowance granted in favour of the petitioner for the Iddat period. Both the appeals were also consolidated by the appellate Court and vide judgment/decree dated 17-2-2004 the learned Additional District Judge, Gujar Khan dismissed both the appeals.
3. Being aggrieved of the judgment/ decree passed by the Appellate Court the petitioner has invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The Counsel for the petitioner claims, that she is the only daughter of her parents and it is not natural that she would not be given gold ornaments at the time of marriage. He has pointed out that dowry articles are of good value, so the parents of the petitioner could well afford the gold ornaments which are listed in Exh.P1 but not in Exh.D3. He further contends that respondent No,1 was the sole witness and his evidence, was not corroborated by any other witness. Whereas he claims that the petitioner appeared as P.W.1 and her father is P.W.2 who corroborated the stance of the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner further avers that the written statement filed by respondent No,1 is evasive and does not help his case at all. He further claims that Exh.D4 is the list of articles that respondent No,1 has claimed back from the petitioner. His main contention is that Exh.P1 was not objected to and this has been observed by the Judge Family Court in the judgment dated 9-9-2003. The operational parts are reproduced herein below:- "Although the list Exh. P1 exhibited without any objection from the opposite party yet it has been an established rule of law that one has to stand on one's own footing and one can not be allowed to take the advantage of the others. In absence of any purchase receipt it is hard to believe that all the dowry articles were purchased by the plaintiff or her parents especially golden ornaments. As a matter of course receipts of purchase of golden ornaments normally are maintained. These receipts have not been presented before the Court rather these are not in possession of the P.W.2 who has been described by the donor of these articles".
4. On the other hand, the counsel for respondent No,1 states that the parties are first cousins and lived in a joint family system and that the dissension between the parties started in the very early days after Nikah and Rukhsati, thus the petitioner had taken items of gold etc. With her while coming to her parents' home. Another stance taken by the counsel for respondent No,1 is that the petitioner has not filed the execution petition qua recovery of dowry articles granted in her favour and that respondent No,1 has given the petitioner maintenance allowance for the period of Iddat.
He also contends that he has presented the receipts Marks "A" and "B" and presses for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. I have heard the counsel for the parties' stances and also perused the record and I feel that stance taken by the counsel for respondent No,1 does not prove or disprove anything. The main contention of the parties, I observe is qua Exh.P1 and Exh.D3. Normally if the judgments of two Courts are not at variance, interference by this Court is not called for. However the perusal of the record reveals that both the Courts below have overlooked very cogent points. In view of Marks "A" and "B" which are receipts presented by respondent No,1, I find both are apparently fabricated as both the receipts are made out for exactly the same jewelry that the petitioner has claimed in Exh.P1 at item Nos. 1 to 4. The second point which gives me fruit for thought is the observation of the trial Court whereby its is stated that Exh.P1 was not objected to. I have noticed that in many judgments of the lower Courts it is held that as receipts for gold ornaments have not been presented, therefore, the person claiming the same has no entitlement to recover them, this too is fallacy. Receipts for jewelry given to daughters are not always available as in our society jewelry in many instances is passed on from mother to daughter. These gold ornaments which, are passed on from mother to daughter, are family heirlooms and to expect receipt for these to be presented is ludicrous. The petitioner being the only daughter of her parents must certainly have been given gold ornaments.
However, I concede that articles mentioned at serial Nos.8 to 11 cannot be recovered as these were given as gifts to respondent No,1 at the time of Nikah. Both the Courts below have taken respondent No, l's statement that he tried to reconcile with the petitioner as the gospel truth. This statement of respondent No,1 is not at all plausible as he abandoned the petitioner on 7-7-2001 whereby she was turned out of house and on 29-9-2001 divorced by her husband. Moreover, the amount claimed in lieu of dowry articles is not a phenomenal amount on the contrary it is meagre compared to what is normally spent in acquiring dowry articles. Exh.P1 is, in my opinion about right and both the Courts below have not paid attention to it. In view of the fact that it was not objected to at the time of it being exhibited, it cannot be thrown out and Exh.D/3 be accepted in its stead.
6. There has been a misreading and non-reading of the evidence placed before the Courts below and an injustice has been rendered to the petitioner, therefore interference by this Court is called for.
7. In view of my above observations, I set aside both the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below by accepting the writ petition and allow the petitioner to recover her dowry articles as per Exh.P/1 or Rs,1,93,030 in lieu thereof by filing an execution petition in the appropriate Court.
8. Disposed of.