' SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J. The factual context of this constitutional petition is that the petitioner and respondent No,3 were married on 22-12-2002. The marriage ultimately ended in divorce.
Family Suit No,1643/2004 was filed by respondent No,3 for recovery of Dowry articles valued at Rs,3,50,000. In the plaint A it was stated by her that her parents gifted her dowry articles of value of Rs,3,50,000 and the same were handed over by her parents to the present petitioner. It was further submitted that all these articles were lying at the premises of the present petitioner. It was prayed in the suit for return of dowry articles or in the alternative for payment of Rs,3,50,000.
2. Present petitioner filed written statement, in which it was admitted that dowry articles were received by the defendant, however thereafter it was pleaded that on 11-5-2003 present respondent No,3 came to present petitioner's house along with her aunt, brother and a servant with two Suzukis. These members, it was stated in the written statement, had taken all the household articles/goods and it was alleged, also household articles of the defendant. Thereafter evidence was recovered and the family Court, vide judgment dated 9-1-2007 dismissed the suit for the following reasons:-- "The list of dowry articles at E-P/4 does not show any signature of defendant side that the said articles were received by the defendant side. Since the plaintiff has failed to discharge burden of proof hence, the issue No,1 is hereby decided in the negative."
3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Family Court present respondent No,3 filed Family Appeal and the Appellate Court vide order dated November 23, 2007 set-aside the judgment of the Family Court and allowed the suit to the extent of recovery of Bangles, furniture, washing machine, fridge and in the alternate an amount of Rs,1,00,000. Being aggrieved by that order husband/present petitioner has filed this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No,3 appeared through her attorney and attorney did not have national identity card. She, therefore, submitted that since it is only attorney who appeared as witness, such evidence could not be relied upon. She further submitted that all dowry articles had been returned.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and have also gone through the record of the case.
7. In the written statement it was pleaded that the petitioner along with her aunt etc, took away "All Household Articles/Goods By Herself". On the other hand in the plaint it was pleaded that dowry articles 'valued approximately at Rs,3,50,000 were given. List of the dowry articles included jewelry items of the value of Rs,1,20,000. In the written statement it was pleaded that dowry articles were already taken by the plaintiff on 11-5-2003 and then household goods were taken thereafter. When attorney of the wife appeared in cross-examination she stated that half dowry articles remained in possession of the defendant. In cross-examination she stated that bangles furniture, washing machine, fridge and household articles are left in the house of the defendant. Defendant himself appeared as witness and stated that the wife came to his house on 11-5-2003 with her aunt, brother etc, and took away all the dowry articles in two Suzuki vans. He did not say any word about return or keeping of jewelry items. The observation by the trial Court that list does not show any signature of the Defendant's side is not really a valid observation, because receiving of the dowry articles is admitted by the husband's side. D Therefore absence of signatures are of no consequence. The Appellate Court has rightly observed that statement of the attorney of respondent No,3 that bangles etc, were still lying with the petitioner remained unchallenged. Even otherwise in the evidence, when the petitioner appeared as witness he did not make any statement regarding jewelry items etc.
8. The value of the jewelry items in the list submitted is Rs,1,20,000. Appellate Court has awarded an amount of Rs,1,00,000. Learned counsel for the respondent did not dispute the finding of the Appellate Court regarding the amount.
9. Therefore, I do not think that any case for interference with the order of the appellate Court has been made out. Consequently this Constitutional petition is dismissed in limini with listed- applications.