' MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.---This petition is directed against the judgment dated 15-1-2009 of learned Ist Additional District Judge, Karachi-South, in Family Appeal No,34 of 2008 upholding the judgment and decree dated 31-5-2008 passed by the XIIth Civil/Family Judge, Karachi-South, in Family Suit No,672 of 2006.
2. The facts leading to this petition are summarized as under:
3. The petitioner was married to respondent No,1 on 28-10-2005 and after marriage parties resided together and after some time differences arose between the parties and petitioner was forced to file Family Suit No,672 of 2006 before the XII Family Judge, Karachi-South, for dissolution of marriage by way of Khula' and recovery of belonging and golden ornament. The respondent No,1 contested the proceedings by filing written-statement denying the averments of the petitioner made in the plaint. It is also apparent from the record that on failure of pre-trial the marriage was dissolved by way of Khula vide order dated 9-12-2006 passed by the learned Family Judge, Karachi-South. On the issue of recovery of belonging and golden ornaments the petitioner and respondent No,1 examined themselves as their witnesses. It is further clear from the record that examination-in-chief of the petitioner was recorded on 6th March 2007 and opportunity to cross- examine was afforded to respondent No,1 but from his side right of cross-examination was not exercised. Thereafter, respondent No,1 examined himself and closed his side of evidence.
Thereafter, learned Family Judge heard the parties and vide judgment dated 31-5-2008 disposed of the suit in the following terms:- "Since the plaintiff has failed to prove the issue No,1, therefore, she is not entitled for recovery of dowry articles as per annexure-P/3 of the plaint as well as her educational documents. The marriage of the parties has already been dissolved by order, dated 9-12-2006. The family case is disposed of accordingly".
4. The petitioner felt herself aggrieved and filed Family Appeal No,34 of 2008 before the Learned Ist Additional District Judge, Karachi-South, who vide his judgment dated 15-1-2009 has upheld the judgment of the learned Family Court which has been impugned in this petition.
5. I have heard Sardar Sher Afzal, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Syeda Sara Kanwal, learned counsel for respondent No,1, and have perused the record available before me.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court were opposit to evidence on record and not in accordance with law, as the learned trial Judge has reached to an erroneous conclusion. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the statement made by the plaintiff/petitioner on oath in the witness-box has not been challenged by respondent No,1, hence the statement of plaintiff/petitioner has gone unchallenged. He has further submitted that the learned trial Judge and the Appellate Court should have considered the evidence of the petitioner and the suit of the petitioner should have been decreed.
7. As against this, learned counsel for respondent No,1 submitted that judgment and decree passed by both Courts below are strictly in accordance with the material available on record. She further submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the two Courts below do not call for interference in writ jurisdiction of this Court. Learned counsel for respondent No,1 further submitted that findings of facts have been recorded by the two Courts below which do not call for interference in constitutional jurisdiction.
8. Now taking up the first submission of learned counsel for the petitioner the evidence brought on record by the petitioner is quoted hereunder:- " My marriage was solemnized on 28-10-2005 with defendant. After marriage defendant used to reside with me in a rented flat. Defendant turned me out from the said flat and took possession of all the house hold articles as well as gold ornaments. My all educational documents as well as my passport are in possession of defendant. I and my sister purchased the 62 articles which were lying in the flat. Due to pregnancy I could not file the case. Now I have one son.
' I have filed present suit for khula, recovery of articles as well as my documents. I have also filed present suit for maintenance of my son".
9. From the perusal of the above, it would transpire that no documentary evidence was brought on record by the petitioner to substantiate her claim with regard to dowry/belonging articles. She has only stated in her examination-in-chief that 62 articles were lying in the flat and she further added that her passport has been withheld by respondent No, 1 . The details of articles were not provided by the petitioner nor any documentary evidence was brought on record in respect of dowry or belonging articles. There was nothing on record before the learned trial Judge to decree the suit, hence learned counsel for the petitioner is not right in contending that material evidence has been over looked. The perusal of above quoted evidence shows that the findings recorded by the learned Family Judge are in accordance with the evidence on record. The second contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that statement made on oath by the plaintiff/petitioner should have been accepted by the Courts below and the suit should have been decreed. Even if the above quoted piece of evidence is accepted no other conclusion can be drawn other than the conclusion arrived at by the Courts below nor any illegality in the impugned judgments has been shown.
10. With regard to the submission of learned counsel for respondent No,1 that findings on fact recorded by the competent fora cannot be disturbed in Constitutional jurisdiction. Learned counsel for respondent No,1 appears to be correct as neither the jurisdiction of the Court has been challenged before me nor conduct of Proceeding by the Courts below have been called in question.
11. I do not see any illegality in the impugned order either passed by the learned original Court or by the learned Appellate Court. The findings recorded by the Courts below do not call for any interference in the Consti ional Jurisdiction of this Court, hence liabl to be dismissed. I have already dismissed the above Constitutional Petition by a short order dated 19-3-2010 and above are the reasons for the same.