M.A. ZAFAR, J.--- This order will dispose of Writ Petition No. 6674 of 2008, Writ Petition No. 6698 of 2008 and Writ Petition No. 6778 of 2008 filed by the petitioner Muhammad Ansar Masood challenging the judgment and decrees passed by the Judge Family Court, Faisalabad on 01.7.2007 and maintained by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad vide judgment and decree dated 19.3.2008 with certain modifications.
2. Writ Petition No. 6674 of 2008 relates to judgment and decree pertaining to dower amount, Writ Petition No. 6698 of 2008 pertains to dowry articles and Writ Petition No. 6778 of 2008 pertains to maintenance allowance.
3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was married to Mst. Tanvir Kausar alias Mariya Batool respondent No. 2 in all the three petitions and at the time of her marriage a plot measuring 01- Kanal in WAPDA Colony Multan was given as dower. That later on it was disclosed that there was no plot in the name of the petitioner in WAPDA Colony Multan and when the respondent/plaintiff demanded her dower. The petitioner/defendant stated that he will get transfer a plot in the name of respondent after arranging an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/-. It has been further alleged that at the time of marriage respondent No. 2 was also given dowry articles as per list appended with the plaint worth Rs. 10,66,100/-. That after strained relations, the respondent No. 2/plaintiff was expelled by the petitioner from his house and since than she is residing in the house of her parents. It was further alleged that the petitioner. Has neither returned the dowry articles nor paid the dower amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- or gave her ary maintenance allowance.
4. The petitioner by filing written statements in the above titled three suits contested the suits and denied the contents of the plaints. He further urged that in lieu of plot measuring 01-Kanal in WAPDA Colony Multan, the respondent No. 2 had received the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-and had given receipt on stamp paper on 16.9.2000; the respondent No. 2 had also received dowry articles against receipts; she had obtained dower on 7.11.2001 due to the intervention of the punchait and she is not entitled for maintenance.
5. From the divergent pleadings of the parties, learned Judge Family Court framed the following consolidated issues:---
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for maintenance allowance, if so, at what rate and from which period? OPP
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover dower amount Rs. 20,00,000/-? OPP
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover dowry articles as well as vari (gifts) as per list annexed with the plaint as Mark-A or in the alternative price thereof Rs. 10,66,100/-? OPP
(4) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the instant suit? OPD
(5) Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD
(6) Whether the instant suit is not proceedable in its present form? OPD . (7) Whether the plaintiff has not affixed requisite Court-fee on the plaint? OPD
(8) Relief.
6. Both the parties appeared as a witness in support of their respective versions and also produced witnesses . The learned Judge Family Court vide judgment and decree dated 1.3.2007 decided all the suits; suit for maintenance allowance was decreed at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month instead of Rs. 8,000/- as claimed by respondent No. 2 and the same was payable from September, 2000 till completion of Iddat, which as per certificate, the date of effectress of the divorce is 27.2.2009. She was held entitled to dower of Rs. 10,00,000/- and on account of dowry, she was held entitled for clothes worth Rs. 70,000/- as mentioned in list mark-D/1 and on account of bari, she was held entitled to get articles mentioned at Serial No. 27 to 34 & 37 or in the alternative price of these articles i.e. Rs. 6,30,000/- so on account of dowry articles in toto, a decree of Rs. 7,00,000/- was passed in favour of respondent No. 2/plaintiff.
7. Respondent No. 2/plaintiff did not challenge the judgment and decrees passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Faisalabad in all the three suits. However, the petitioner who was defendant in all the three suits filed three separate appeals challenging the judgment and decrees and the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad vide judgment and decree dated 19.3.2008 modified the same as under:--- "Appeal filed by petitioner in a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance was dismissed with costs. The appeal filed by petitioner in suit for recovery of dowry and dower was also dismissed with costs but decree dated 1.3.2007 passed by the learned Judge Family Court was modified to the extent that respondent/plaintiff shall be entitled for getting transferred 1-Kanal Plot in WAPDA Colony, Multan from the plaintiff or in lieu thereof for an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- whichever acceptable to present petitioner and in case, petitioner failed to transfer 1- Kanal plot within one month then respondent No. 2 will be entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- from the petitioner as dower. The appeal relating to suit for recovery dowry articles was also dismissed with costs."
The impugned judgment and decree dated 01.3.2007 qua the dowry articles was up held with the following modifications:---
(i) Two bridle suits or in lieu thereof their value @ Rs. 500/- each.
(ii) 28 suits of her dowry articles and 60 suits of her bari articles or in lieu thereof their value @ Rs.
500/- each
(iii) Golden ornaments as mentioned at serial Nos. 29 to 34 of list Ex.P.2 weighing 57 tolas or in lieu thereof their value according to market value at the time of execution of decree.
(iv) One pair of silver shoe weighing 40 tolas or in lieu thereof their value according to market value at the time of execution of decree.
(v) Six brief cases or in lieu thereof their value @ Rs. 1000/- each.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I have noticed that no misreading or non-reading of evidence or glaring mistake has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, justifying interference in Constitutional jurisdiction. The reappraisal of the evidence is not- possible as Courts below have concurrently held the respondent No. 2/plaintiff entitled to maintenance, dower and dowry articles. Respondent No. 2/plaintiff did not challenge the decree of Rs. 10,00,000/- passed in her favour in lieu of dower amount though claimed Rs.
20,00,000/- in the plaint and similarly she did not challenge the other decree passed in a suit for recovery of dowry articles allowing her a decree of Rs. 7,00,000/-, though she claimed Rs.
10,66,100/-.. So much so she did not challenge the decree allowing maintenance allowance at. the rate of Rs. 3000/- though she claimed the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per month.
Respondent did not file any appeal or cross objections challenging the decrees. Having not filed an appeal or cross objection she accepted the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court and thus there was no justification with the learned Additional District Judge to enhance the amount of dower or dowry articles. Reliance is placed on case of Mateen Haider v. ADJ Lahore and others (2005 SCM R 1683) and Ahmad Yar v. ADJ Chiniot, District Jhang and others (2007 SCM R 1768). Resultantly, Writ Petition No. 6778 of 2008 filed by the petitioner in respect of the maintenance allowance is dismissed. Writ Petition No. 6674 of 2008 is partly allowed by holding that decree of Rs. 10,00,000/- passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Faisalabad in suit for recovery of dower will hold the field. Regarding Writ Petition No. 6698 of 2008 pertaining to dowry articles, the decree passed by the learned Judge Family Court having not challenged by the respondent No. 2/plaintiff will hold the field and thus she will be entitled to Rs. 70,000/- and gold ornaments as mentioned at Serial Nos. 29 to 34 & 37 in the list Ex.P.2 or in lieu thereof, their value according to market rate at the time of execution of the decree. Resultantly, Writ Petition No. 6674 of 2008, 6698 of 2008 are partly allowed with the above modifications. No order as to the costs.