ORDER SYED AKHLAQ AHMAD, J.--- Gul Sher/petitioner/defendant through this writ has challenged the validity of the judgment and decree dated 5-6-2010 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge Khushab whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and upheld the judgment and decree dated 15-3-2010 passed by the Judge Family Court Khushab whereby lie decreed the suit of return of dowry of Mst Maryam Sultana/respondent No. 1/plaintiff in her favour as per list Exh.P-1.
2. Facts giving rise to this petition are that on 22-10-2009, Mst. Maryam Sultana filed suit for dissolution of marriage, recovery of maintenance and return of dowry while Gul Sher filed suit for restitution of conjugal rights against each other. Both the parties contested the suits by filing written statements. Both the suits were consolidated. Consolidated issues were also framed. The parties produced their evidence in support of their contentions whereafter learned Judge Family Court decreed the suit of Mst Maryam Sultana to the extent of dissolution of marriage and return of dowry but dismissed the same to the extent of recovery of maintenance except for the period of Iddat of three months @ Rs.2,000 per month and also dismissed the suit for restitution of conjugal rights of Gul Sher vide his consolidated judgment and decree dated 15.03.2010. Feeling aggrieved, both the parties filed their appeals which were dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge Khushab vide his judgment dated 5-6-2010. Aggrieved with the concurrent findings of the courts below, the petitioner/ defendant has assailed the same before this court through the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant contends that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below are against the law and facts of the case. It is based on misreading and non-reading of evidence on the record. The petitioner always supported respondent No.1/plaintiff and her parents. When he refused to fulfill their further demands, she filed this suit. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ may be accepted and the impugned judgments and decrees dated 5-6-2010 and 15-3-2010 passed by both the courts below be set aside.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the documents available on file, I. Find that the, fact of giving dowry to Mst. Maryam Sultana/respondent No.1/plaintiff and its price as per list Exh. P-1 is not controverted by Gul Sher/petitioner/ defendant in his statement as DW-1. His only objection is that the said dowry including the gold ornaments were purchased by respondent No. 1/plaintiff from the money given by him and due to this reason he will not return the dowry to her. To prove his stance, the petitioner has led no evidence. The solitary statement of A the petitioner/defendant as DW-I is not sufficient to hold that the dowry claimed by respondent No.1/plaintiff as per list Exh.P-1 was in fact purchased by the money given by him as he being party to the suit is interested to depose in his favour.
Even otherwise section 5 of the Dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Act, 1976 provides that all property given as dowry or bridal gifts to a bride shall vest absolutely in her and that her interest in the said property, however derived shall not be restrictive, conditional or limited.
5. In the said section, there is no limitation of Rs.5,000 either for dowry or for wari. On the other hand, it has been provided therein that such property shall be owned by her absolutely and to the exclusion of the bridegroom without caring for the source through which it has come and without limitation of any amount. Therefore, it is quite clear that in spite of the restriction imposed in section 3, a bride is the owner of the dowry and wari articles irrespective of their value and she is entitled to retain it forever and to claim its return or the value thereof, if the same is kept back by her husband or any other person. In this regard I rely upon 'Masud Sarwar v. Mst. Farah Deeba' 1988 CLC 1546 (Lahore).
6. There is also another aspect of this case. Jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is completely discretionary in nature and may be declined in appropriate cases. While exercising the constitutional jurisdiction, this court has to see, if the tribunal or court acted without jurisdiction or in violation of any relevant statute or law and the High Court in such cases cannot embark upon a reappraisal of D evidence and proceed as if it was hearing an appeal from the subordinate court. It is the job of the appellate court to appraise the evidence in accordance with law and the same has been done in the instant case. Tribunal having jurisdiction to decide the matter is competent to decide it rightly or wrongly and the mere fact that the decision is incorrect does not render the decision without lawful authority as held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of Zulfiqar Khan Awan v. Secretary Industries and Mineral Development, Government of the Punjab Lahore and 8 others' PLD 1973 SC 530. In this regard reference can also be made to case Bakht Zada v. Mst. Joomreza and 2 others' 2007 M LD 570 (Peshawar).
7. Judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below are supported by the evidence on file and no material portion of evidence seems to have been misappreciated, non-appreciated or kept out of consideration. No irregularity or jurisdictional defect has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner calling for interference by this court in its constitutional jurisdiction. Writ petition has, therefore, no force and the same is dismissed in limine.