1. ' MUZAFFAR ALI, J.---I propose to dispose of the Appeals Nos.5 of 2009 and 9 of 2009 through this single judgment as both the appeals are against the single judgment/decree dated 8-6-2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge Gilgit in Civil Suit No 166-A of 2002 filed by the appellant in Appeal No, 5 of 2009.
2. ' The dispute, between the parties to both the appeals, is after effect of the divorce between the parties with the facts that, they could not retained their matrimonial relations, as such the respondent in Appeal No, 5 of 2009 divorced the appellant and the appellant/plaintiff sued the respondent for recovery of her dower deferred Rs, 50,000, maintenance sum of Rs, 1,20,000 and price Rs, 2,21,000 of the dowry articles, total Rs, 3,91,000. The learned Civil Judge tried the suit and decreed the suit to the extent of the deferred dower to the tune of Rs, 80,000 in favour of plaintiff, hence the supra appeals by both the parties to the suit before this Court.
3. I heard both the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant in the Appeal No, 9 of 2009 stated at bar that, although the plea of his client in respect of dower money was Rs, 150 to be fixed as per his written statement, but for the sake of settlement of dispute his client is ready to pay Rs, 50,000 dower deferred as has been claimed by the respondent in the plaint. The learned counsel invited my attention towards the head note of the plaint whereby, the plaintiff has A claimed Rs, 50,000 in the ledger of dower and no explanation is available in the impugned judgment in this regard to make me understand how the learned trial Judge extended the decree to the tune of Rs,80,000, while the plaintiff has categorically claimed Rs, 50,000 in terms of deferred dower in her plaint. So nothing is on the record of the case to prevent me to modify the impugned decree by reducing it to Rs, 50,000 in the ledger of dower deferred as prayed for in the plaint.
4. In respect of the Appeal No, 5 of 2009, I am of the opinion that, the learned trial Court has misconceived the record of the case for the reasons that: (a) the plaintiff has given a list of her dowry articles in Para 6 of the plaint, which left in the house of the respondent while she was forced to leave his house by his mother. The defendant has admitted the fact that the dowry articles are in his house except the jewellery and clothes but he contradicts on the price fixed by the plaintiff as to be more than the value. He also offers plaintiff to fetch the same. In such circumstance, I am surprise how the learned trial Court has deprived the lady to receive the articles or price of the same. The offer of the defendant, to say that the plaintiff may fetch the articles from his house, is not proper in the sense that a lady, when she married a man went to Gujrat from Gilgit (the cities are having a long distance between) to inhabit along with her husband and also fetched dowry in aid and to participate to make the house of her Husband habitable, could not be compelled to revisit the house for recollect and to take the articles while un-luckily the relation is broken and she returned back to her father's home, hence the defendant is liable to return and deliver the articles to the lady at the place she resides.
5. The learned trial Court has refused the maintenance money also to grant in favour of the lady but without cogent reasons. The record of the case transpires otherwise. The defendant has admitted in Para 4 of his written statement that, the plaintiff had to leave her husband's house as a result of quarrel with her mother in law when the defendant was out of his house at a place of his posting.
6. This statement of the defendant is sufficient for a man of common prudence to infer that, the lady being steriled might have faced taints and mental tortures from her mother in law as psyche of a mother in such a situation can be expected, hence the version of the lady is more believable than that of the version taken by the defendant that the lady left the house with her free consent.
7. ' Consequent upon the above discussion I reached to the conclusion that: (a) the decree passed by the learned trial Judge is modified and dower decretal amount Rs, 80,000 is reduced to the tune of Rs, 50,000 and decreed the same in favour of the plaintiff (b) the appeal No, C.F.A 5 of 2009, filed by the lady is accepted on the issue of dowry articles and declared the defendant liable to returned and deliver those articles which he has admitted in his written statement to be in his home to the plaintiff at the place of her present residence (in Gilgit) within one month of receiving copy of this detail judgment otherwise he would be liable to pay the price of those articles as the same has been fixed in the plaint (c) the defendant is also liable to pay the maintenance money fixed Rs, 2,000 per month from the date the lady was forced to leave his house up to the last date of Sharie Iddat.