This petition has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2011 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Jhang as well as, against the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jhang, whereby the findings of the learned trial Court on the issue for recovery of dowry articles were modified and the price of the dowry articles was increased from Rs,65,000/- to Rs, 1,00,000/,
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that admittedly the list of dowry articles was not prepared at the time of marriage; that due to flood in the year 2010 all the dowry articles were destroyed; that the Plaintiff/Respondent No, 1 failed to establish her case in respect of dowry articles, therefore, the petitioner was not liable to return the said dowry articles, hence, both the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside.
3. On the other hand, this petition has been opposed by the learned counsel for Respondent No, 1 on the grounds that non-preparation of dowry list at the time of marriage and non-production of receipts of the said articles is not fatal to the case of the Plaintiff/Respondent No, 1; that the Plaintiff/Respondent No, 1 filed her suit for recovery of dowry articles or in the alternative for recovery of Rs,2,69,600/- as price of the said articles, whereas the same has been decreed only to the extent of Rs, 1,00,000/-; that the learned appellate Court while appreciating the evidence of the Plaintiff/Respondent No, 1 has rightly enhanced the price of the dowry articles from Rs,65,000/- to Rs,1,00,000/-; that the petitioner/plaintiff could not produce any evidence to establish that the dowry articles were damaged due to the flood; that there are concurrent findings of facts of two Courts below, recorded in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent No, 1, therefore, this petition may be dismissed.
4. Arguments record and record perused.
5. Plaintiff/Respondent No, 1 filed a suit for recovery of dowry articles or in the alternative for recovery of Rs,2,69,600/-, as price of the said articles. Her suit for recovery of dowry articles was decreed by the learned Judge Family Court, Jhang and price of the decreed dowry articles was fixed at Rs,65,000/-. Anyhow, the said findings of the trial Court were modified by the learned Additional District Judge, Jhang, and Respondent No, 1 was held entitled to recover Rs,1,00,000/- as price of dowry articles from the petitioner. The Plaintiff/Respondent No, 1 has given the detail of dowry articles during her cross-examination. She has, mentioned different articles and has also given value of the said articles. Similarly Muhammad Iqbal, PW-2 has also mentioned some of the dowry articles in his cross-examination. The father of the petitioner was admittedly employed as Warden in Jail, therefore, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff/Respondent No, 1 was not given any dowry articles at the time of her marriage. Ordinary articles were mentioned by the Plaintiff/ Respondent No, 1 during her cross-examination. On one hand, the petitioner/defendant has totally denied that the Plaintiff/Respondent No, 1 was given any articles of dowry, whereas on the other hand, he has taken this plea that the dowry articles were destroyed due to flood. The stance of the petitioner/defendant is self-contradictory. Even otherwise, the petitioner/defendant did not produce any evidence to establish that the dowry articles were destroyed due to flood. The claim of the plaintiff/ Respondent No, 1 also inspires confidence because she has frankly admitted in her plaint that gold ornaments of the dowry has already been returned to her by the petitioner/defendant. This fact shows that claim of the Plaintiff/Respondent No, 1 is genuine. The evidence of the Plaintiff/Respondent No, 1 and Muhammad Iqbal (PW.2) has been proved to be reliable and confidence inspiring. The learned appellate Court after appreciating the evidence of the Plaintiff/Respondent No, 1 and in light of the dowry articles and their respective price mentioned by B the Plaintiff/Respondent No, 1 during her cross-examination has rightly determined the price of said articles. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned appellate Court.
6. In light of the above discussion, the instant petition is without any substance; hence, the same is hereby, dismissed.