M.A. ZAFAR, J.--- Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff was married to respondent/defendant on 21.9.2002. Later on, the differences between the parties cropped up, so constrained with the situation, the petitioner filed a suit for dissolution of marriage, recovery of dower and dowry articles. Pre-trial reconciliation proceedings failed and suit of the petitioner to the extent of dissolution of her marriage was decreed on 8.4.2004 on the basis of Khula in lieu of dower amount. For the remaining claim of the petitioner regarding dowry articles, following issues were framed.
"(1) Whether the articles of dowry mentioned in the list annexed with the plaint belong to the plaintiff and the same are in possession of the defendant? OPP
(2) Relief."
2. Learned Judge Family Court, vide judgment and decree dated 13.12.2006 decreed the suit of the petitioner holding that she is entitled to recover dowry articles as per list attached except item No. 11 (gold ornaments weighing half K.G.) in alternate, she was found entitled to recover Rs. 2,00,000/- as value of the dowry articles.
3. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Lahore, the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore vide judgment and decree dated 27.3.2008.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Courts below fell into error by not considering the documents and receipts available on the file of the case, the photographs of the marriage occasion giving gold ornaments to the bride were not considered and the Courts below fell in error in disallowing the production of receipts of dowry articles including receipts of gold ornaments.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that both the Courts below have concurrently held that the petitioner is not entitled to the gold ornaments.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I have observed that no detail of ornaments was given either in the plaint or in the list of dowry articles and even her witnesses did not give detail of the same. The Courts below have concurrently given findings about dowry articles and no misreading or non-reading of evidence has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. For the foregoing reasons, there is no force in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. .