The petitioner, namely, Muhammad Saeed son of Ch. Muhammad Sarwar, by filing this constitutional petition has assailed the judgments and decrees dated 18.3.2008 and 17.5.2008 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Vehari and the learned Additional District Judge, Vehari, respectively and sought setting aside thereof being illegal, void, ab-initio and without lawful authority.
2. Precisely the facts giving rise to this petition are that Respondents No, 3 (Mst. Kalsoom Akhtar daughter of Ch. Muhammad Mushtaq) filed a suit for recovery of dowry articles valuing Rs, 2,48,000/-which was contested by the petitioner/defendant by filing a written statement; out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the trial Court proceeded to frame three issues including that of relief; both the parties led evidence to prove their respective claims; the learned Judge Family Court after considering the evidence led by the parties, vide its judgment dated 18.3.2008, decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff in the following manner: "For what has been discussed above, the suit of the plaintiff for dowry articles is decreed to the extent of Rs, 100,000/- as its alternative price and to the rest of the claim, the suit is dismissed.
Decree accordingly."
Being aggrieved of the said judgment and decree, the petitioner/ defendant preferred an appeal, which was partly allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Vehari vide judgment and decree dated 17.5.2008, whereby value of dowry articles was reduced to Rs, 75,000/-. Hence the instant petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the record available on the file as well as the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below.
4. It has been observed that in order to prove their respective stances, the respondent/plaintiff herself appeared as P.W.1 and got examined her father Mushtaq as P.W.2 and produced in evidence list of dowry articles, whereas the petitioner/defendant in rebuttal appeared himself as D.W.1 and got examined his father Muhammad Sarwar as D.W.2. The respondent/plaintiff in her statement appearing as P.W.1 deposed that dowry articles valuing Rs,2.50,000/- had been given to her at the time of her marriage, whereas her father while appearing as P.W.2 stated that the value of the dowry articles was about Rs, 1,14,000/-. In rebuttal, the petitioner/defendant and his father while appearing as D.Ws. 1 and 2 admitted that certain articles but denied the giving of gold ornaments, T.V., Fridge, and Washing Machine. The learned trial Judge after evaluating the evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion that keeping in view the financial status of the parents of the respondent/plaintiff, she was entitled to get dowry articles of valuing Rs, 1,00,000/-, however, rest of her claim was declined. The learned Additional District Judge after reprising the evidence available on the record proceeded to partly allow the appeal of the petitioner and reduced the amount of dowry articles to Rs, 75,000/- from Rs,1,00,000/-.
The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Courts below have misread the evidence available on record and the impugned judgments are liable to set aside as having been passed in a hasty manner, do not carry any weight inasmuch as the conclusions arrived at by the learned Appellate Court are based on sound reasons. No illegality or infirmity or misreading of evidence has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner calling for interference by this Court in the impugned judgments and decrees.
5. Resultantly, I find no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.