' IJAZ UL AHSAN, J.---This petition assails judgment and decree dated 24-2-2009 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Lahore, which was upheld vide judgment and decree dated 24-6- 2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore.
2. The parties got married on 19-4-1994 in consideration of Rs,25,000 as prompt dower. It is alleged that the prompt dower was not paid. A child was born from the marriage, who is in the custody of the respondent. The marriage did not last and ended in divorce.
3. Respondent No,1 claims that at the time of her marriage, her parents gave her dowry articles, list of which was brought on record before the learned trial Court. She also claimed that she was also given a Suzuki car bearing No,LHR 3443. An estimated value placed by the respondent of her dowry articles along with car was Rs,7,00,000. This is the claim which the respondent raised in her suit for recovery of dowry articles filed before the learned trial Court.
4. The petitioner contested the suit. Issues were framed. Evidence was recorded. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the respondent in the sum of Rs,3,50,000. The judgment and decree of the learned trial Court was assailed before the learned Additional District Judge by both the parties. Vide judgment and decree dated 24-6-2009, both the appeals were dismissed.
5. The afore-said judgments and decrees are assailed before this Court by the petitioner on the ground that the respondent had filed a time barred suit before the learned Judge, Family Court, which was subsequently withdrawn. Yet another suit was later filed without disclosing that the earlier suit had been dismissed, therefore, the subsequent suit could not have been decreed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that respondent No,1 made misstatements and self contradictory statements before various forums at various stages including an admission to the effect that she had filed a false and baseless suit. It is further pointed out that no credible evidence was brought on record in support of her case by the respondent and the learned Judge, Family Court decreed the suit without there being any credible evidence on record to support the decree. It is added that the learned subordinate Courts fell into error and misread the evidence, which has led to erroneous and wrong conclusions. The learned counsel further claims that actually the petitioner had given a sum of Rs,7,00,000 to the respondent, which was lying with her and the same had been misappropriated. He further points out, that gold ornaments and diamond rings belonging to the petitioner are also in possession of the respondent. He adds that other than a transfer letter regarding the Suzuki vehicle, there is no credible evidence on record to indicate that a Suzuki vehicle was actually given to the respondent as a part of her dowry.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the entire case of the petitioner is based upon allegations, surmises and conjectures, which is not supported by any evidence on record. He points out that the respondent belongs to an educated family, which was financially well off. Her father was an Engineer with a Sugar Mill in Punjab. One of her brothers is an Engineer in Saudi Arabia and another was a goods transporter. The learned counsel, therefore, argues that family of respondent No,1 possessed considerable financial resources and had actually given valuable dowry to respondent No,
1. It is also pointed out that the respondent herself was a Captain Nurse in Pakistan Army and was receiving a good salary.
7. Adverting to the question of filing a fresh suit, the learned counsel points out that material was placed on record, which clearly indicated that the first suit was withdrawn with permission to file a fresh suit. Therefore, the question of the suit being hit by the principles of res judicata did not arise.
The learned counsel has further pointed out that there are concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the learned Courts below, which are based upon evidence available on record. A large number of documents in the form of receipts were placed on record before the learned trial Court, which were not objected to by the petitioner and have rightly been read in evidence. The learned lower Courts were therefore, justified in placing reliance not only on those documents but also on the oral evidence produced by the respondent. The material clearly indicates that she had received reasonable amount of dowry including 15 Tolas of gold, value of which is much in excess of the amount that the learned lower Courts have granted in terms of a decree in her favour.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. I have also perused the record with their assistance. I have carefully examined the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Judge, Family Court as well as the learned Appellate Court.
9. It is an admitted fact that the marriage between the parties did not last long. The history of litigation between the parties is not enviable. The matter has lingered on for more than past 12 years. It is high time that the disputes were put to rest. The rightful claimant gets its dues and parties move on. The evidence produced before the learned trial Court indicates that the respondent had received some dowry at the time of her marriage. The respondent also produced evidence by way of documentary as well as oral evidence in support of the case set up by her. The documents produced by the respondent were not objected to and the learned subordinate Courts were, therefore, justified in relying upon the documents in question. Likewise, the oral testimony produced by the respondent was subjected to lengthy cross-examination. Nothing was achieved, by way of shaking credibility of the witnesses produced. Even otherwise, as against the claim of Rs,7,00,000, the learned trial Court has decreed the suit only to the extent of half of the said amount. A perusal of the judgments and decrees of the learned subordinate Courts indicates that the said Courts applied their conscious mind not only to the evidence produced but also to the documents placed on record in support of the respective contentions of the parties. The learned subordinate Courts were circumspect in coming to the conclusion that there might have been exaggeration in calculating the value claimed by respondent No,1, but at the same time, they made a conscious effort to arrive at a realistic figure on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and evidence placed on record. In exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, this Court is not required to act as an appellate forum. Interference in the concurrent findings of the learned subordinate Courts on the questions of fact, is an exception and not the rule. In order to fall within the purview of exception, it has to be established that the learned subordinate Courts acted illegally, with material irregularity, exercised jurisdiction not vested in them or passed orders, which were in excess of their jurisdiction. None of the afore-said grounds has been established before me to warrant interference in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. I find that the learned subordinate Courts acted within the ambit of their jurisdiction and no perversity in exercise of jurisdiction has been demonstrat d.
10. For the afore-said reasons, interference is declined. Consequently, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.