' IJAZ UL AHSAN, J.---The petitioner assails judgment and decree dated 1-4-2009 passed by a Judge Family Court, Sialkot, which was upheld with some modification by learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, vide order dated 13-5-2009.
2. The respondent filed a suit for recovery of dowry articles against the petitioner stating that the petitioner and the A respondent were married on 20-10-2006. The marriage did not last long and ended in divorce on 19-12-2007. The respondent claimed that her parents had given her dowry articles as per list attached with the plaint, The value of the dowry articles was claimed to be Rs.13,01,092. The suit was contested. Out of the pleadings of the parties as many as six issues were framed. The parties adduced their evidence whereafter the learned trial Court heard arguments and decreed the suit of the respondent vide judgment and decree dated B 1-4-2009. On appeal the learned Appellate Court excluded some of the articles of dowry/their value and decreased the amount from Rs.13,01,092 to Rs.8,34,713 which is now the subject-matter of this constitutional petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the list on the basis of which the suit was filed and relied upon by the learned subordinate courts was never exhibited on the record. P.W.1 in her statement admitted that the list had been prepared at the time of filing of the suit. P.W.2 also substantiated that claim. He points out that no documentary evidence was adduced before the learned subordinate courts despite the fact that the dowry articles were given. In the statement of the learned counsel for the respondent it was admitted that no documentary evidence had been placed on record. The learned trial Court in its judgment stated that the respondent had proved her case by oral and documentary evidence which was obviously in contradiction of the statement made by the learned counsel and is not supported by the record. The learned counsel has further argued that no documentary evidence had been produced and the learned trial court had erred in law in coming to the conclusion that the case had been proved on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence. This issue was raised before the learned appellate Court. However, the appellate Court has not dealt with the said question. He further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to return the C articles admitted by him in the written statement.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgments and decrees of the learned subordinate courts. He has pointed out that most of the articles mentioned in the list were admitted in the written statement. He has referred to paragraph-3 of the affidavit of the respondent where she had given details of the dowry articles received by her. It is pointed out that she was not specifically cross-examined on this aspect, which constitutes an admission of the contents of her affidavit. The learned counsel further points out that during cross-examination the respondent reiterated and gave details of the articles of dowry received by her. He adds that the respondent during her cross-examination stated that she was in possession of receipts showing purchase of the articles of dowry which were taken over by the mother of groom. The learned counsel emphasized the fact that the prices of the dowry articles given by the respondent were not denied at any stage. Referring to the evidence of P.W.2 who is the real father of the respondent, he points out that he had categorically stated that the list was prepared at the time of marriage and each item given to the respondent as her dowry was mentioned in his diary. It was on the basis of entries made in the diary that the list was prepared which was appended with the plaint. He has also referred to the testimony of other witnesses who have fully and categorically supported the statement of P.W.2. The learned counsel has also pointed out contradictions in the testimony of D.W.1 and D.W.2. D.W.1 stated that the list attached with the suit was a fake one. In the same breath he stated that all items mentioned in the said list were not received as dowry. On the other hand, D.W.2 while denying in the earlier part of his testimony that any dowry was received, admitted during his cross-examination that dowry was received but only few articles were received and not the articles mentioned in the list. He further points out that according to D.W.3 the marriage function was held in one of the best hotels in Sialkot which points towards the circumstances in which the marriage took place and also towards the financial status of the parents of the respondent.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record with their assistance.
6. In the first place, in exercise of Constitutional Jurisdiction, this Court does not act as an appellate Court and detailed appraisal and reappraisal of evidence at this stage is not required. In order to succeed the petitioner has to establish that the learned subordinate courts acted in excess of jurisdiction or exercised jurisdiction in a manner which was perverse or beyond the parameters laid down by the law. It is further incumbent upon the petitioner to show misreading or non-reading of evidence.
7. It is noticed that the respondent produced sufficient, cogent and reliable evidence before the learned subordinate courts to establish that she had received dowry articles. The fact that she was not specifically cross-examined on the issue and the fact that she reiterated most of the list in her evidence points towards the fact that she had received reasonable amount of dowry articles most of which was also admitted by the petitioner in his written statement. The fact that the list was not exhibited is not of much consequence in view of the fact that in her statement the respondent recounted that list and was not specifically cross-examined on the same. This fact was also substantiated in the evidence of her father who specifically stated that a list was indeed prepared at the time of marriage which was noted in his diary on the basis of which a fresh list was prepared for the purpose of filing in the Court. So far as the non-production of documentary evidence in the form of receipts is concerned, the said fact stands substantially explained in the statement of the respondent who stated that the groom's mother had taken over the dowry articles as E well as the receipts. Even otherwise, the value of the dowry articles mentioned in the list attached with the plaint has not been questioned.
8. I have also given some consideration to the fact that the petitioner has offered to return articles admitted by him which according to him are in his possession. If this offer is accepted, it would open up another controversy regarding the condition of the articles, their value and the possibility of substitution. I do not, therefore, feel that the said offer is a feasible solution to the issue.
9. Even otherwise, neither the attitude of the petitioner nor the offer made by the learned counsel on his behalf inspires confidence. I am not satisfied that the offer is bona fide and genuine and not a device to prolong and delay the matter. A perusal of the evidence of the parties and the documents available on record indicate that the learned subordinate courts applied their judicial mind to the material before them. It is evident from the fact that the learned appellate Court took pains to undergo an exercise whereby some of the articles which did not stand established through the evidence were excluded from the list and only value of those articles was allowed which had satisfactorily been explained and had evidentiary support. Most of the findings of fact arrived at by the learned subordinate courts are supportive of each other and I am not impressed by the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgments of the learned subordinate courts are at variance. I find that the learned subordinate courts have acted fairly, justly and with circumspection and have exercised their jurisdiction within the parameters prescribed by the law. There is no misreading or non-reading of evidence. The learned subordinate courts have neither acted illegally nor with material irregularity.
10. For the reasons stated above, I do not find the instant case to be a fit case to warrant interference in exercise of extra-ordinary Constitutional Jurisdiction of this Court. This petition fails.
It is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost.