ABDUL WAHEED KHAN, J. --- The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for recovery of dowry articles of the value of Rs. 14,06,478/-. The same was contested and after the settlement of issues, both the parties led their evidence. The Family Court decreed the suit vide judgment dated 27.3.2008 in the following terms:- "The plaintiff has not produced receipt of purchase of dowry articles. However, keeping in view the evidence led by the parties this Court is of the view that parents often given some articles of daily use to, their daughter. PWs themselves admitted that only page one of the list mark-A and Ex.P1 are same and as prepared at the time of marriage. In these circumstances I am of the view that plaintiff is entitled to recover dowry articles as per page No. 1 of the list produced by the plaintiff.
Marriage of the parties took place four years ago and it is presumed that after four years the price of the dowry articles have devalued and same will not be less than 60% of the original price.
Therefore, it is held that plaintiff is entitled to recover dowry articles as per page one of the list Ex.P1 or in the alternate 60% of their price."
2. Both the parties assailed the said judgment and decree before the Appellate Court, who vide judgment and decree dated 13.9.2008 modified the judgment of Family Court. The operative part whereof is as under:- "Therefore, once the said list Ex.P1 is not found in accordance with Rule 4 of Dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Rules, 1976, the same could not be taken into consideration as the same is purely in accordance with law. Even otherwise, due to its overwriting and mentioning of prices at a later and belated stage without support of any receipt issued by concerned shop-keepers its decree by the learned Trial Court is found in the excessive. However, keeping in view of the surrounding circumstances and marital tie of parties who had enjoyed their happiest days of marriage while modifying the same a sum of Rs. 60,000/- is decreed as an alternative price of Jahaiz articles while dismissing rest other all claims. Both these appeals are disposed of in the light of the above modification."
3. The petitioner/plaintiff has assailed the afore- mentioned judgments and decrees through this Constitutional petition.
4. It is submitted that respondent Abdul Azeem while appearing as DW-1, has admitted during the course of cross-examination that some gifts were given to him and his family at the time of the engagement and that presumption would be that dowry articles were also given to her at the time of marriage and that the Appellate Court has misinterpreted the law. According to him, DW-2 has denied his signature on the list of dowry articles and in these circumstances the Family Court should have got his signatures compared with his admitted signatures from the Handwriting Expert.
5. Conversely, counsel for the respondents submits that it is a case of no evidence and that plaintiff herself and Muhammad Waseem PW-2 have deposed that list of dowry articles was prepared on the basis of receipts but the said receipts have not been produced before the Family Court and presumption would go against the petitioner/plaintiff and since there is nothing on record in the shape of documentary evidence therefore, the impugned judgments and decrees do not call for any interference.
6. Counsel for the parties have been heard.
7. The main contention of counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff is that some gold ornaments were given to the family members of respondent No. 1 at the time of her engagement but this fact itself does not prove that in fact the dowry articles as alleged in the plaint, were given to her by her parents at the time of marriage. The Family Court has given its findings that petitioner could not produce the receipts of dowry articles and that she could not specifically prove that dowry articles were given to her. The petitioner/plaintiff and PW-2 namely Muhammad Waseem in answer to the question have stated during the course of cross-examination that price of dowry articles were written on the basis of receipts but no such receipts were placed on record to substantiate her claim. Hence, there appears no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment dated 13.9.2008 passed by Appellate Court. Resultantly, the instant petition stands dismissed. .