M.A. ZAFAR, J.--- Brief facts of the case are that petitioner/defendant was married to respondent No. 1/plaintiff according to Muslim Rites on 12.12.2003 and a dower Rs. 500/- was fixed and as per claim of the petitioner dowry articles amounting to Rs. 2,86,131/- was given to her at the time of the marriage which is in possession of the present petitioner. On account of differences between the parties petitioner divorced the respondent No. 1 on 6.6.2006, thereafter respondent No. 1 filed a suit for recovery of dowry articles of Rs. 2,86,131/-.
2. Petitioner filed written statement controverting the allegations and further stating that dowry articles whatsoever are in her possession and in pars. No. 2 of the written statement it was also asserted that dowry articles as well as its prices is excessive.
3. From the divergent pleadings of the parties, learned Judge Family Court framed the following issues: "(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for dowry articles or in the alternate price Rs. 2,86,131/?OPP
(2) Relief."
4. During the trial respondent No. 1 appeared as PW-1 and also produced Muhammad Yousaf as PW-2 who prepared the list Ex.P-1. PW-3 Arif A.I also produced in support of her claim.
5. On the other hand, present petitioner appeared as DW-1 and produced a. List Ex.D.1 stating therein that said articles were given to respondent No. 1 and the same are in his possession and he is ready to return the same. The learned Judge Family Court, Faisalabad decreed the suit to the extent of Fridge and T.V in addition to list given by the petitioner Ex.D-1.
6. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge Family Court partly decreeing the suit, respondent No. 1 as well as the present petitioner filed cross appeals and through a consolidated judgment and decree dated 20.3.2008 learned Additional 'District Judge, Faisalabad dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and accepted the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 to the extent of dowry articles as per list Ex.P-1 excluding items at Serial Nos. 67 to 73, except gold ornaments if not returned to pay 75% of the price claimed by respondent No. 1. It was further directed that if the gold ornaments are not returned by the petitioner then the respondent will be entitled for its price according to the market rate of the gold at the time of execution of decree.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Appellate Court has erred in not accepting the list of dowry articles Ex.D-1 and the 'impugned judgment and decrees passed by the Courts below, are result of misreading and non-reading of evidence.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that learned Appellate Court after going through the evidence and appreciating the same rightly decreed the same as per list Ex. P-1.
9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I have noticed that the learned Appellate Court has taken into consideration, the Statement of respondent No. 1 in which she said that she was expelled from the house of appellant and an amount of Rs. 200/- was with her. The said part of the statement was not rebutted by the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 was also supported by Yousaf All and Arif A.I as PW-2 and PW-3 and there is no reason at all why they will make false statement. After due appreciation a Court of competent jurisdiction has found that respondent No. 1 is entitled to recover the amount as stated above, no mis-reading or non-reading of evidence has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
10. For the foregoing reasons, there is no force in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. .