JUDGMENT CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.---Through this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the judgment and decree dated 25-1-2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad.
2. Brief facts of the case as mentioned in the writ petition are that respondent No 1/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of dower amount of Rs.200,000, recovery of dowry articles as per list annexed with the plaint or in the alternative, its value of Rs.472,900 and for the recovery of maintenance allowance of Rs.5,000 per month as past as well as future maintenance. The suit was resisted by the petitioner/defendant. After framing of issues and recording of evidence of the parties, learned Judge Family Court decreed the suit of respondent No.1/ plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 23-10-2009 in the following tune:-- "The nutshell of above detailed discussion, the suit in hand is hereby decreed in favour of plaintiff to the extent of recovery of dower amount at the rate of Rs.2,00,000. Suit in hand is hereby partially decreed to the extent of recovery of dowry articles except the articles mentioned at Serials Nos.38, 41, 84 to 87, 90 to 92. The lump sum amount of remaining decreed dowry articles is hereby fixed at the rate of Rs.3,00,000. Plaintiff is hereby declared entitled to recover the remaining decreed dowry articles as per list Exh.P-5 or its fixed value in cash. Suit in hand is hereby decreed regarding recovery of gold ornaments mentioned at Serials Nos.39 and 40 and plaintiff is hereby declared entitled to recover these gold ornaments from defendant.
Suit in hand is hereby dismissed to the extent of recovery of maintenance allowance."
3. Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioner filed an appeal which was modified by the learned Additional District Judge Faisalabad vide his judgment and decree dated 25-1-2010 as under:-- "In the circumstances, there is no need to interfere in the findings of learned Judge Family Court on Issue No.2 with regard to the delivery of dowry articles. However, it is evident that golden ornaments mentioned at Serial Nos.39 and 40 were included in the decree passed by learned Judge Family Court when it has specifically been mentioned that except dowry articles mentioned at Serials Nos.38, 41, 84 to 88, 90 to 92, lump sum amount of remaining articles were fixed at the rate of Rs.3 lac thus the amount of golden ornaments was included in the above said decree and the separate order of delivery of golden ornaments mentioned at Serials Nos.39 and 40 was rather a duplication, therefore, to this extent the impugned judgment and decree is rectified and that the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to recover the dowry articles except articles mentioned at Serials Nos.38, 41, 84 to 87 and 90 to 92 or Rs.3 lac in lieu thereof. The appeal is however dismissed."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the learned courts below are against the law and facts. The amount of dower is deferred dower which could only be paid to respondent No.1 either on the death of the petitioner or when respondent No.1 is divorced. However, both the learned courts below have erred while decreeing the suit of deferred dower in favour of respondent No. 1/plaintiff. Learned counsel has further contended that the list of dowry articles was never signed by anyone, therefore, it could not be considered as proof of cogent evidence. Learned counsel prays that the writ petition be allowed, the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the learned courts below be set aside and the suit of respondent No .1/plaintiff for recovery of dower amount as well as dowry articles be dismissed.
5. Conversely, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has vehemently controverted this writ petition mainly on the ground that there are concurrent findings of facts against the petitioner, therefore, this matter could not be reopened in the constitutional jurisdictional this Court.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner has not divorced respondent No.1 who is still wedded were of the petitioner. Para 17 of the Nikahnama highlights that the amount of Rs.200,000 was fixed as a deferred dower which is payable to respondent No.1 either on the death of the petitioner/husband or when the petitioner pronounces divorce upon respondent No. 1 . Both the learned courts below have erred while decreeing the suit of deferred amount of Rs.200,000 in favour of respondent No.1, particularly, when it is not denied by both the parties that the marriage between the spouses still exists and respondent No.1 is still legally wedded were of the petitioner. However, both the learned courts below have passed the decree for recovery of dowry articles in favour of respondent No.1 after hearing both the parties and perusing the record and evidence adduced by the parties, which could not be assailed in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
8. As a result of above discussion, the claim of the petitioner to the extent of dowry articles is not maintainable, as such, the writ petition to the extent of suit for recovery of dowry articles is dismissed. However, the writ petition is accepted to the extent of payment of deferred amount of Rs.200,000 to respondent No. 1 . As a consequence, the suit of respondent No.1 for the recovery of deferred dower of Rs.200,000 is dismissed.