' IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, J.---This constitutional petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
(a) Call for the Record and Proceedings of Family Appeal No,37 of 2011 and R & P of Family Suit No,1921 of 2009 from the trial and appellate Courts of learned respondents Nos.2 and 3.
(b) To set aside the impugned judgment dated 6-10-2011 and decree dated 22-10-2011 passed by the learned respondent Not in Family Appeal No,37 of 2011 and judgment dated 17-2-2011 decree dated 24-2-2011 in Family Suit No,1921 of 2011 of the respondent No,3. The decretal amount of the receipt is calculably approximately Rs, 12,50,000 which is unjust and unfair keeping in view non- appreciation and misreading of the evidence and impeachability of the respondent No,1 and her witnesses due to their false and contradictory statements no judicial mind has been applied rather evidence of the respondent No,1 has been considered in a more favourable lighting the respondents Nos.2 and 3.
(c) Cost of the petition and other relief (s) this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances, be granted in the interest of justice.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent No,1 was married to the petitioner on 17-8-2007 and at the time of the marriage the parents of the respondent No,1 gave her certain dowry articles including jewellery. After some period of the marriage the relations between the petitioner and the respondent No,1 strained and thereafter the respondent No,1 filed a suit for dissolution of marriage by way of khula and for recovery of dowry articles amounting to Rs,27,23,139. Thereafter the Family Judge vide her order dated 17-2-2011 allowed the said suit by observing that the respondent No,1 is entitled to receive her dowry articles back and calculated the decretal amount at Rs,12,50,000. An appeal thereafter was preferred before the Additional District Judge, who also vide her order dated 6-10-2011 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed.
3. Syed Ali Ashraf, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the orders passed by the two Courts below are the result of misreading and non-reading of the evidence. He submitted that both the Courts below have not considered that the receipts of the dowry articles furnished by the respondent No,1 were fake, as no name is appearing on the said receipts and even some receipts do not bear any signature. He submitted that as per section 8 of the Dowry and Bridal Gift Act, 1976 and Rule 4 of the Dowry and Bridal Gift Rules, 1976, the list of the dowry articles was required to be furnished to the Registrar, which has not been done and the same fact has duly been admitted by the respondent No,1 in her cross-examination. He further submitted that the receipts of dowry articles produced are not acceptable under Articles 75, 76 and 77 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. He further submitted that the two Courts below have not considered the admission of the respondent No,1, who has admitted that the dowry articles are still lying in her house. He further submitted that the concurrent findings are against him but since it is a settled proposition of law that if the concurrent findings are the result of misreading and non- reading of the evidence, the same are liable to be whittle down. He further submitted that the Courts below have not considered the point that no jewellery receipt was given by the respondent No,1 while making her claim. In the end he submitted that since the orders passed by the two Courts below are not in accordance with law, the same are liable to be vacated. In support of his above contentions the learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions: (1). S. A.K . Rehmani v. The Slate (2005 SCM R 364)
(2) 2007 SCMR 175 (Sic).
(3) Mst. Subham v. Allah Ditta (2007 SCM R 635)
(4) Rabnawaz Khan v. Ghulam Muhammad (1999 CLC 1185)
4. Khawaja Muhammad Azeem, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent No,1 and submitted that there are concurrent findings in favour of the respondent No,
1. He further submitted that the two courts below after dilating upon the issue in an exhaustive and comprehensive manner have decided the case in favour of the respondent No, 1 . He further submitted that the father of the petitioner in his cross-examination has admitted that all the articles mentioned in the plaint are lying in the petitioner's house. He further submitted that the documents produced, which have been termed by the learned counsel for the petitioner to be fake, were in fact produced by the petitioner, hence, it is the petitioner who has to be blamed for furnishing fake and forged documents. He further submitted that the claim of the dowry articles was made as per the list of the dowry articles and the same was based upon the actual dowry articles given to the respondent No,1 at the time of the marriage, which she took along with her and are available in the house of the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that at no point of time the petitioner has denied the fact that the dowry articles mentioned in the list were not given to the respondent No,
1. He further submitted that only receipts available at page 173 and 175 of the file were given by the respondent No,1, which receipts are in respect of the purchases made by the respondent No,1 from Abu Dhabi.
He lastly submitted that since the concurrent findings are in his favour and nothing new has been brought on the record by the petitioner, this petition is devoid of any merits and is liable to be dismissed. In support of his above contentions the learned counsel has relied upon the decision reported. As Shajar Islam v. Muhammad Siddique (PLD 2007 SC 45).
5. I have heard both the learned counsel at considerable length and have perused the record and the decisions relied upon.
6. It is seen from the record that there is no denial to the fact that dowry articles were given to the respondent No,1 by her parents, which not only consist of household articles and other items also including jewellery. It is also an undeniable fact that all these items were thereafter shifted to the petitioner's house. It is also seen from the record that some dispute took place between the petitioner and the respondent No,1, which matter upon the intervention of the parents of the respondent No,1 was patched up. However, again a dispute arose between the petitioner and the respondent No,1 and the respondent No,1 due to the ill attitude of the petitioner left his house for good and thereafter suit for dissolution of marriage by way of khula and return of dowry articles amounting to Rs,27,23,139 was filed by her. It is seen from the record that lengthy proceedings took place before the trial Court where both the parties led their evidence, detailed cross-examination etc. Was also made in that behalf and the trial Court after hearing both the parties at considerable length through an exhaustive order decreed the suit in favour of the respondent No,
1. It is also seen that both the petitioner as well as the respondent No,1 have produced their witnesses. The trial Court while examining the father of the petitioner has categorically observed that he had admitted in his cross examination that "the respondent No,1 had brought all the articles, mentioned in the plaint and list, to the petitioner's house", which amply proves that the respondent No,1 had taken all the items mentioned in the dowry list along with her to the petitioner's house. It is seen that a number of receipts were produced before the trial Court and the trial Court after considering each and every receipt has passed the decree only in respect of those receipts which in its opinion appear to be genuine.
7. In my view, nothing more now is left to decide in the instant petition since it is an admitted fact that the respondent No,1 brought along with her dowry articles at the house of the petitioner, which aspect has not only been admitted by the father of the petitioner but the same issue has also not been controverted by the counsel appearing before me. It is also seen that when it is proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the dowry articles were brought by the respondent to the home of the petitioner, which were not returned and are still with the petitioner, it is obligatory on the part of the petitioner to either return the same or to pay the cost thereof. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court after thrashing out the issue threadbare has come to the unanimous conclusion that prima facie a case has been made out against the petitioner and decided the same in favour of the respondent No, 1.
8. Since, I do not find any misreading or non-reading of the evidence or any `finding which is derogatory to the settled propositions of law and in view of the findings recorded above this Constitutional Petition is found to be devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed along with the pending application.
' Above are the reasons of my short order.