' MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J.--- Through two constitutional petitions No,8158/08 and 12573/08 the petitioners have assailed the judgment and decree dated 31-3-2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha. As both the petitions are against the same judgments and thus are decided through a single judgment.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Mst. Razia Bibi filed a suit against Muhammad Yousaf, for recovery of dowry articles detailed in the list annexed with the plaint, the amount of dowry articles is shown as Rs,1,12,855. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 25-1-2006, the parents of respondent gave dowry articles amounting to Rs,1,12,855 to her. The petitioner/husband ousted her wife and refused to return the dowry articles.
3. The respondent/husband vehemently contested the suit and denied all allegations of plaint, the defendant denied the receipt of dowry articles and alleged that respondent left his house with her free will. He also alleged that while leaving his house the respondent took the garments and cash Rs,6,000 with her. He further claim that he spends Rs,35,000 to serve the lunch to the Barat and lent loan of Rs,73,000 to the respondent's father and sisters.
4. The learned trial Court, out of divergent pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: "ISSUES:
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the dowry articles mentioned in the list annexed with the plaint or in alternative Rs,1,12,855 as price thereof ? OPP
(2) Relief.
5. Both the parties produced their respective evidence and the learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 4-10-2007. The appeal Court decreed the suit for the return of dowry articles or in alternative, a sum of Rs,47,820. Both the parties have impugned the judgment and decree dated 4-10-2007.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No,8158 of 2008 submits that the judgment and decree passed by the learned appeal Court is against the facts and law. No dowry articles were ever given to the respondent as has been proved on record and as such as the findings of the learned appeal Court are against the record.
7. The petitioner in Writ Petition No 12573 of 2008 claimed that her case was fully proved about the dowry articles but the learned appeal Court has wrongly assessed the value of dowry articles as Rs,47,820. Learned counsel submits that when the learned appeal Court came to the conclusion that delivery of dowry articles were proved, the learned Court was not justified to slash the claim drastically.
8. Heard, record perused.
9. The learned appeal Court rightly opined that in our society even a poor man tried to give dowry articles to his daughter at the time of her marriage even by raising loan on the hope that this will help his daughter to lead her life peacefully. The learned appeal Court keeping in mind the status of the parties rightly assessed the value of dowry articles as Rs,47,820.
10. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that no dowry articles has been given is not borne out from the evidence produced by him. Both the parties have failed to pinpoint any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment. Further this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction can not interfere in the findings of facts and as such both the petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.