' SH. AHMAD FAROOQ, J.---Through the instant Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 11-11-2003, passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Mianwali, and the judgment dated 23-6-2004, whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Mianwali, has passed a decree of Rs,30,000 in favour of the respondents.
2. Brief facts for adjudication of the lis in hand are that Mst. Aziz Fatima, filed a suit for recovery of her articles of dowry, but she died during the pendency of her suit. However, her parents i.e, father and mother, were transposed as plaintiffs. After recording the evidence, the learned Judge Family Court, Mianwali, passed a decree of A Rs,52400 in favour of the plaintiffs/ respondents Nos.1 and 2 as cost of the articles of the dowry, vide judgment dated 11-11-2003. Being aggrieved of the said judgment, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mianwali, vide judgment dated 23-6-2004, to the extent of Rs,30,000 and to the extent of the remaining amount, the same was accepted. Consequently, at present, the present petitioner is only liable to pay Rs,30,000 to the respondents.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned judgment dated 23-6-2004 may be modified and the amount of the articles of dowry be reduced from Rs,30,000 to Rs,15,000 as the share of the present respondents. A Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the value of articles of dowry was determined by the learned Courts below arbitrarily. He has also placed on record a copy of the receipt, whereby Malik Inayat Ullah Awan, Advocate, has received Rs,15,000 on 10-2-2006, on behalf of the respondents, in compliance of the order of this Court dated 6-6-2005.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment dated 23-6- 2004, passed by the learned Additional district Judge, Mianwali. He further submitted that the value of the articles of the dowry, which was determined vide impugned judgment, at Rs,30,000, was on the lower side.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused
6. It is an admitted fact that Mst. Aziz Fatima, who was the legally wedded wife of the present petitioner, died during the pendency of her suit for recovery of articles of dowry. According to law of inheritance, present petitioner, being the husband of the deceased, is also entitled to a share out of the estate of her deceased wife. Respondents/Muhammad Sharif and Mst. Mumtaz Bibi are the father and mother, respectively, of Mst. Aziz Fatima, deceased, and they are also entitled to a share out of the estate of Mst. Aziz Fatima, deceased. The learned Judge Family Court, Mianwali, as well as the learned Additional District Judge, Mianwali, vide their judgments dated 11-11-2003 and 23-6- 2004, respectively, determined the worth of the articles of the dowry arbitrarily and without any convincing evidence on record from either side. It is established from the record that both the learned Courts below did not accept the price of the articles of the dowry, which was written on the list of dowry articles, available on the record. It is worth-consideration that both the parties submitted their own separate list of the articles of dowry. Therefore, no credence could be attached to either of the aforementioned list. The "Nikah" of Mst. Aziz Fatima was solemnized with Muhammad lqbal/present petitioner, on 19-11-2000 and the said Mst. Aziz Fatima died on 20-82001.
The price of the articles of the dowry as well as their depreciation cannot be exactly determined at this point in time. In these circumstances, the judgment, dated 23-6-2004, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mianwali, is modified to the extent that the present respondents are entitled to recover Rs,15,000 only as price of the articles of dowry of Mst. Aziz Fatima, deceased, as her legal heirs. The petitioner has already paid an amount of Rs,15,000, on 10-2- 2006, during the pendency of the instant writ petition, to the learned counsel for the respondents. Hence, the instant writ petition has borne fruit and the same is accordingly disposed of.