AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J. --- Through this Constitutional petition, the petitioner has impugned the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Rahim Yar Khan, dated 16.11.2009 in family appeals, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner-defendant was dismissed and appeal filed by respondents-plaintiffs was partially accepted, by way of which, maintenance allowance of minor plaintiff was enhanced from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 2,000/- per month alongwith 10% annual increase, and the judgment and decree passed by the Judge Family Court, Rahim Yar Khan, dated 9.4.2009, whereby suit of the respondents-plaintiffs for maintenance allowance and dower was decreed.
2. The facts are that on 19.4.2008 respondents Nos. 3 and 4-plaintiffs filed a suit for maintenance allowance and plaintiff No. 1 prayed for the decree of dower amounting to Rs. 19,00,000/-. The petitioner-defendant appeared and contested the suit by raising he preliminary objections through written statement. From the divergent pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed necessary issues and invited the parties to produce their evidence. Both the parties adduced their respective evidence oral as well as documentary.
Vide judgment and decree dated 9.4.2009 the Trial Court decreed the suit in the following terms:- "The maintenance allowance of plaintiff No. 2 (minor daughter) was granted at the rate of Rs.
1,000/- per month . The suit for dower amounting to Rs. 19,00,000/- was partially decreed upto Rs.
16,00,000/- in favour of plaintiff No. 1."
Both the parties preferred appeals before the first Appellate Court. Vide judgment and decree dated 16.11.2009 passed by the first Appellate Court, the appeal filed by he petitioner-defendant was dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the respondents-plaintiffs was accepted to the extent of plaintiff No. 2 (minor daughter) the maintenance allowance granted by the Trial Court was enhanced from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 2,000/- per month with 10% annual increase and to the extent of other prayer, the' appeal was dismissed. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant has tried to make out a case on the basis of interpretation of oral evidence of the parties and the fresh interpretation of said evidence.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below and stated that the defence taken by the petitioner- defendant was absolutely wrong and that the documentary evidence cannot be thrown away by accepting the oral evidence in the light of Article 104 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at full length and also gone through the record with their able assistance.
6. The learned counsel for the. Petitioner has tried to make out the case on the basis of referring the details of evidence. I am afraid that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, this Court cannot enter into the interpretation of the evidence of parties oral as well as documentary.. To make out a case of interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under the ibid Article, the petitioner is bound to show any jurisdictional defect in the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. The Constitutional jurisdiction cannot be exercised as a matter of routine or like a right of appeal of the party. If it is exercised like right of appeal, it will be against the intention of legislature which has not given right of appeal in the statute before this Court. It will be to circumvent the intention of legislature if it is exercised like appellate jurisdiction, when the right of appeal is intentionally not given in any legislation, before this Court. It has some significance that the matters be resolved in the Trial Court as well as one right of appeal has been given to the looser party. In case in hand, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to show any jurisdictional defect in the exercise of jurisdiction by the Courts below.
The. Fresh interpretation of evidence of the parties, oral as well as documentary, is not permissible.
7. Moreover, the previous suit filed by the plaintiffs was not decided on merits and that only Sections 10 and 11 of the CPC are applicable in the family suits. Therefore, filing of fresh suit was not a bar. The Ex.P-3 which shows that the alleged Nikahnama produced by the defendant as Ex.D-1 is forged one. The Ex.P-1 was a certified copy of Nikahnama produced by the plaintiff which was duly attested by the Secretary, Union Council and the witnesses of marriage mentioned in column No. 11 of Ex.P-1 are admittedly the friends of petitioner-defendant. He has relations with these witnesses for a period of about 15 years. There is no reason with the plaintiff No. 1 to mention the full particulars as well as I.D. Card numbers of these witnesses in Ex.P-1 who ,are admittedly the friends of petitioner-defendant for preparing a forged document in her favour. In these circumstances, the petitioner-defendant failed to make out a case of interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Resultantly, the Constitutional petition being devoid of any force is dismissed with costs. .