' HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.---The petitioner Nasir Ahmad has called in question the judgment and decree dated 7-3-2009 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Sahiwal and the judgment and decree dated 29-8-2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal.
2. The petitioner Nasir Ahmad son of Naseer was married with respondent No,1 Mst. Naseem Akhtar daughter of Muhammad Ameer. The marriage was solemnized on 31-5-2005. The plaintiff lady respondent No,1 filed suit for recovery of maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs,10,000 p.m., claimed dower amount at the rate of Rs,10,00,000, expenditure allowance Rs,50,000 and 10 Tolas gold ornaments or the value of the ornaments Rs,1,30,000. The plaintiff alleged that at the time of Nikah Rukhsiti took place but later on near about after one week, she was kicked out from his house. She further alleged that petitioner/defendant defrauded the petitioner. He was already married with Mst. Riaz Bibi. Petitioner/defendant had told the plaintiff that he had divorced his first wife Mst. Riaz Bibi. The petitioner contested the suit, filed written statement. The petitioner/defendant raised preliminary objection controverted the facts of the plaint and denied the Nikah with plaintiff lady. In the light of divergent pleadings of the parties the learned Judge Family Court framed the following issues:-- Issues.
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs,10,000 per month as mentioned in Nikah Nama? OPP
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the dower amounting to Rs,10,00,000 as mentioned in the Nikah? OPP
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the damages amount Rs,50,000 and ten Tolas golden ornaments of the valuing of Rs,1,30,000 as mentioned in Nikahnama? OPP
(4) Relief.
' In failure of pre-trial reconciliation proceedings the learned Judge Family Court asked the parties to produce their respective evidence.
3. The respondent No,1/plaintiff herself appeared as P.W.1, Muhammad Yasin appeared as P.W.2 while Muhammad Bashir appeared as P.W.3 and produced copy of Nikahnama Exh.P-1 and she closed the oral and documentary evidence. The petitioner/defendant appeared as D.W.1, produced Ghulam Sarwar as D.W.2 and tendered Nikah Nama Exh.D-1 and closed the evidence.
4. Learned Judge Family Court vide judgment and decree dated 14-3-2008 decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent to the extent of maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs,10,000 p.m. And decreed the suit of dower amount of Rs,10,000 and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/ respondent to the extent of expenditure of Rs,50,000 and demand for golden ornaments of 10 tolas. The petitioner/ defendant filed an appeal before the learned District Judge Sahiwal on 14-3-2008; that the learned Additional District Judge partly accepted the appeal and remanded the case back to the learned Judge Family Court, Sahiwal with the direction that the learned Judge Family Court will examine Nikah Khawan, Nikah Registrar and Secretary Union Council concerned along with the record as CW and provide the parties opportunity to produce evidence regarding the execution of Nikahnama or witness or consummation of marriage.
5. After remand from the appellate Court Ameer Ali Secretary Union Council appeared as CW.1, Qari Muhammad Shafi Nikah Khawan appeared as CW-2, Abdul Rauf Secretary Union Council appeared as C.W.3 and Muhammad Afzal appeared as C.W.4. The learned Judge Family Court on 7-3-2009 decreed the suit of the plaintiff/ respondent for dower amounting to Rs,10,00,000 to the extent of their claims the suit was dismissed.
6. The present petitioner being aggrieved from the judgment and decree dated 7-3-2009 passed by learned Judge Family Court preferred an appeal to the learned District Judge on 29-8-2009 accepted the appeal of the petitioner/ defendant to the extent of maintenance allowance of the plaintiff lady and fixed the maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs,1,000 p.m. Instead of Rs,10,000 p.m. Which was decreed by the learned Judge Family Court from the date of institution of the suit till subsistence of marriage. However, the learned Additional District Judge Sahiwal dismissed the appeal of the petitioner to the extent of Haq Mehr/ dower.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued the case that the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below are the result of misreading and non-reading of evidence. Respondent No,1/plaintiff lady failed in proving her Nikah with the petitioner/defendant. He further submitted that Exh.P-1 was not proved according to law. It was argued that plaintiff lady is the Khalazad of the petitioner/defendant and belonged to a poor family and there was no any extraordinary qualification of the plaintiff lady due to which petitioner/ defendant contracted second marriage with respondent No,1 and fixed Rs,10,000 as dower. These heavy amounts are sufficiently proved that forgery has been committed. The petitioner/defendant working on a brick kiln and runs a donkey cart and it is beyond the source of petitioner/defendant to pay Rs,10,00,000 as Haq Mehr/dower and Rs,1,000 p.m. As maintenance allowance. Learned counsel further submitted that Columns Nos.21 and 22 of the Nikahnama are blank and there is no mention of any permission of second marriage nor mention of any previous marriage; that D.W.-2 Ghulam Sarwar is the alleged witness of Nikah Nama Exh.P-1 who flatly refused from being a witness of this Nikah Nama and denied thumb-mark on the Nikah Nama; that Muhammad Bashir Nikah Khawan, a marginal witness of Exh.P1 denied its execution; that the findings of both the Courts below on issues Nos.1 and 2 are liable to be set aside and suit be dismissed; that both the Courts below wrongly decided issue No,4 against the petitioner/defendant. Learned counsel further submitted that the deferred dower is always payable in case of death or in case of dissolution of marriage can be claimed. He placed reliance on Muhammad Sadaq v. Mst. Ghulam Fatima and 6 others 2005 YLR 2634 Lahore, Muhammad Nawaz v. Faiz Ahmad and another 2005 YLR 2903 Lahore and Liaqat Ali and 8 others v.
Abdul Aziz and 3 others 2005 YLR 12 Lahore.
8. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent lady fully supported the judgment passed by both the Courts below contending that there are concurrent findings of facts of two Courts below which cannot be disturbed in writ jurisdiction by this Court unless there is some jurisdictional error or defect pointed out by the petitioner. Appraisal of evidence is not permissible in writ jurisdiction. There is no misreading or non-reading of evidence.
' Both the Courts below correctly made appraisal of the evidence produced by both the parties.
Learned counsel submitted that through the statements of Secretary Union Council, Nikahkhawan C.W.1, the factum of Nikah with the petitioner is fully proved beyond any shadow of doubt.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. There are concurrent findings of fact with regard to factum of marriage of the plaintiff lady with the present petitioner. Learned Judge Family Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff lady first on 14- 3-2008 and on appeal the case was remanded back to the learned Judge Family Court. The learned Judge Family Court again decreed the suit of the plaintiff after recording more evidence of C.W.1, C.W.2 and on the basis of record of Union Council which was also produced in support of Nikah of respondent lady with the present petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner badly failed to point out any misreading and non-reading of evidence on the record and learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any jurisdictional error in the judgment passed A by two Courts below. An application was filed by the present petitioner with regard to amendment in issue No,4.
The learned Judge Family Court had dismissed the application of the petitioner vide order dated 24-7-2007 and held that issue No,4 was rightly framed and the onus to prove was on the defendant so the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that onus was shifted to plaintiff lady to prove issue No,4 is incorrect. The order of the learned Judge Family Court with regard to amendment of issue No,4 was not assailed B before any higher forum so in the writ jurisdiction the plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the onus to prove of issue No,4 was shifted on the plaintiff is not correct. De novo appraisal B of evidence is not permissible in the writ jurisdiction. I would not like to interfere in the judgment passed by two Courts below which are based on convincing, rational and cogent reasons. The petitioner lady has proved her Nikah with the petitioner through oral as well as documentary evidence which is on the file of the case.
The cases cited by learned counsel for the' petitioner on the point of proving of document does not advance the case of the petitioner. Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 and Civil Procedure Code are not applicable in family cases except certain sections of these laws. The judgments cited, by learned counsel for the petitioner are in civil cases. There is no jurisdictional error in both the judgments and decrees of two Courts below. In this judgment and decree passed by lower appellate Court, as well as judgment and decree of learned Judge Family Court, there is no illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this Court in constitutional jurisdiction. I would not like to interfere in the impugned judgments and decrees of two Courts below. I am fortified from the judgments reported as Muhammad Habib v. Mst. Safia Bibi 2008 SCM R 1584, Ishfaq Ahmad v.
Judge Family Court, Okara 2007 YLR 1550, Muhammad Anwar v. Shamim Akhtar 2007 CLC 195, Rehman Gull v. Mst. Nizakat Bibi 2007 M LD 551 DB.
11. In the light of above discussion this writ petition is dismissed in limine.