1. ' AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.---Through this constitutional petition the petitioner Muhammad Zaffar Baig has impugned the Judgment dated 30-5-2011 passed by learned Family Judge, Karachi South in Family Suit No.627 of 2009 whereby she decreed the suit allowing payment of dower amount to respondent No.1 as well as judgment dated 25-5-2012 passed in Family Appeal No.65 of 2011 passed by V-Additional District Judge, Karachi South whereby he dismissed the appeal preferred against the Judgment of the Family Court.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 Mst.Afsheen filed Family Suit No.627 of 2009 for recovery of dower amount alleging therein that she was married to the petitioner and dower amount was fixed at Rs.10,00,000 out of which Rs.9,50,000 was prompt and Rs.50,000 was deferred.
3. The entire dower amount still remains unpaid. No formal Rukhsati took place and on the next day of the marriage petitioner left for Dubai. However, he returned to Pakistan after one month'and started his job in Media Centre. He kept her on false hopes that he will disclose the marriage to his parents and will also arrange separate accommodation. After returning to Pakistan, he started living with respondent No.1 at her parents' house. After passage of some time he started maltreating and extending threats to her. She further' stated that petitioner executed an Iqrarnama wherein he promised to pay maintenance to her at the rate of Rs.40,000 per month but failed to do so.
4. Thereafter he discontinued to meet her and even did not respond to telephonic calls.
5. ' The petitioner contested the suit and filed written statement wherein he denied the allegations made in the plaint. He asserted that he being pupil of respondent No.1, was requested by her to sign the Nikahnama and Iqrar Nama in order to facilitate her to take revenge from her ex husband who had divorced her. According to him, he signed blank Nikahnama and 'so also Iqrar Nama in a hurry and left for Dubai on the next day. He further asserted that after observing her objectionable relations with strangers, he divorced her.
6. ' After recording of evidence and hearing the counsel for the, parties, the suit was decreed. The Judgment and Decree of the Family Court was challenged in appeal, however, the appellate court dismissed the appeal on the sole ground that the same is barred by limitation, hence this petition.
7. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was getting tuition from respondent No.1 who requested him to sign the Nikahnama and Iqrar Nama in order to accommodate her in taking revenge from her ex husband, who had divorced her. According to him, out of respect she being his teacher, he signed blank Nikahnama so also Iqrar Nama in a hurry and left for Dubai on the next day. According to him, in fact, respondent has trapped the petitioner in order to extort money. He further contended that Iqrar Nama was got signed prior to the date of Nikah, therefore same does not come within the purview of contract: that the learned Family Court has misread the evidence adduced during the trial of the suit. He contended that only Nikahnama and Iqrar Nama was got signed by the petitioner in a hurried manner but the marriage was not consummated in a proper way, because soon after signing the Nikahnama and lqrarnama the petitioner left for Dubai.
8. ' On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that the petitioner has totally failed to challenge the judgment passed by the appellate court as the appeal was dismissed on the sole ground that the same is barred by time but not a single word has been said in the petition on the point of limitation. There is, at all, no assertion made in the petition regarding the point of limitation and the petitioner has not said a word that the appellate court has committed any illegality or irregularity while passing the impugned judgment. On merits, he contended that order passed by the Family Court is well-reasoned and each and every aspect of the case has been discussed elaborately and after appreciating the evidence in a proper manner, Family Court has decreed the suit which calls no interference.
9. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record.
10. Admittedly the judgment of the appellate court is based on the sole point of limitation and merits have not been discussed at all. In such eventuality, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to attack the judgment of the appellate court on the ground of limitation but surprisingly although the petitioner has made elaborate assertions on merits and also took legal pleas to challenge the judgment passed by the Family Court but has not said a single word that the judgment of the appellate court having been passed on the ground of limitation is not in consonance with the law or settled principles enunciated by the superior courts. In these circumstances, the judgment of the appellate court stands unchallenged and holds field. Therefore, I have been left with no option but to concur with the findings given by the appellate court. Accordingly, the constitutional petition is dismissed in limine.
11. ' Above are the reasons for short order passed on 4-12-2012.