' SHEZADA MAZIIAR, J.--- Through the instant petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has assailed the consolidated judgment and decree dated 1-7-2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot whereby the appeal filed by petitioner against the consolidated judgment and decree dated 9-4-2009 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Sialkot was dismissed whereas the appeal filed by respondent No,1 was allowed and suit for recovery of dowry articles was decreed as prayed for.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of present petition are that the petitioner was married with respondent No,1 on 5-4-1998. The adversaries were blessed by three male off-springs. In the year 2003 petitioner clandestinely contracted second marriage and therefore respondent No,1 abandoned the petitioner's abode and joining her own parents. Later she instituted suit for recovery of her dower and separate maintenance as well as a suit for the recovery of dowry article or their rice Rs,9,75,880. The present lis arises from the suit for the recovery of dowry articles. The said suit was contested by the petitioner and on the basis of pleadings of the parties three issues including relief were framed by the learned Judge Family Court. Both the parties led their oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. Learned trial court decreed the suit for recovery of dowry articles vide judgment and decree dated 9-4-2009 holding that respondent No,1 is entitled to recover the dowry articles or Rs,400,000 as their price. The said judgment and decree was challenged by both the parties in appeal. Learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot vide judgment and decree dated 1-7-2009 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and accepted appeal of respondent No,1 and decreed the suit of respondent No,1 as prayed for. Hence the present writ petition.
3. On the preceding dates of hearing, Mr. Nazir Ahmed Janjua entered appearance but today despite his name is appearing in the cause list none has entered appearance on behalf of respondent No,1 therefore respondent No,1 is proceeded against ex parte.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the courts below have ignored the admission of the respondent No,1 (PW-1) that the list of dowry articles was drawn by her and her counsel. Both the courts below have also ignored the admission made by the real father of respondent No,1 while he was appearing as PW-2 that Exh.P1/2 contains spurious signatures of respondent No,1 and that the fake list Exh.P1/2 has been counterfeited by a court official during the pendency of the suit. The findings of the courts below were not based on sound appreciation of facts. Submit that with the consent of the parties a Bailiff of the court was appointed for drawing the inventory of goods laying in the house of the petitioner. The Bailiff of the Court prepared the list and submitted before the learned Judge Family Court. The said list was never challenged by respondent No,1 and therefore both the courts below have fallen in error by skipping over not only the said list/inventory, but also to award a decree for recovery of money without even bothering to take up each and every item and its price at the time of purchase and the depreciated value at the time of institution of the suit. In support of his claims learned counsel relied upon Mst. Adan Mushtaq v. Shahid Majeed and others (2010 YLR 3179), Mst. Tabassum v. Wagar Hussain and another (2011 MLD 351), Azhar Mehmood v. Ms. Hafeez-un-Nisa (PLD 2014 Lahore 131) and Kaleemullah v. Additional District Judge and others (2014 YLR 590).
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the record with his able assistance.
6. First of all, I have to see as to what was the claim of respondent No,1 in her suit? She demanded dowry articles as per list: Ex.P.1/2 or in lieu thereof Rs,975,880 as its price. Her claim was accepted by the learned Judge Family Court to the tune of Rs,400,000 on the ground that the respondent No,1 had failed to prove the list Exh.P1/2 and that exaggerated prices of articles have been mentioned in the said list. It means not the total claim of the respondent was accepted by the learned Judge Family Court. Both petitioner as well as respondent No,1 filed appeals against the said judgment and decree of the learned Judge Family Court dated 9-4-2009. The perusal of the consolidated judgment and decree passed by the learned Appellate Court reveals that the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed after holding that respondent No,1 has proved her case through confidence inspiring evidence. Whereas the appeal of the respondent No,1 was allowed in the following terms:--- Since the respondent/plaintiff has proved her case, therefore, the findings on Issue No,1 are hereby upheld. The instant appeal is allowed. Consequently the suit of respondent/plaintiff is hereby decreed as prayed for.
7. From the above it is not clear how the amount of the dowry articles have been increased from 4,00,000 to as prayed for i,e, 9,75,880. It is also observed that while passing the above judgment and decree dated 1-7-2009 the learned 1st appellate Court has failed to consider the fact that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 5-4-1998 and the dowry articles remain in common use of the parties for a considerable period. The articles mentioned at serial number 18 to 27 are clothes and other daily use items which must have lost their value/utility by their use over years. Further, regarding gold ornaments neither any receipt of purchase of the same, was produced nor any evidence regarding leaving the gold ornaments in the house of the petitioner was produced. Therefore, learned Family Court has rightly fixed the value of the dowry articles keeping in view the law laid down by this court in Azhar Mehmood v. Ms. Hafeez-un-Nisa (PLD 2014 Lahore 131) as respondent No,1 has failed to establish Exh.P1/2 through cogent and reliable evidence.
8. It will not be out of the place to mention here that it was not a runaway marriage between petitioner and respondent No,
1. It was an arranged marriage of the petitioner with respondent No, 1.
According to the customs which are deeply rooted in our society, the parents whether rich or poor, always give dowry to their daughters at the time of their marriage mostly over and above their status, so giving of dowry to the petitioner by her parents cannot be disputed.
9. It may also be observed that the petitioner had claimed specific articles, which on the occasion of marriage were given by her parents according to the list Exh.P.1/2. This list contains particulars of each and every item of the dowry. The claim of recovery of dowry articles has also successfully been proved by respondent No,1 by examining herself as PW1 and producing list of dowry articles as Exh.P.1/2 on the file without any objection from the petitioner. However the value of the said list has not been proved by respondent No,1 which has been rightly fixed by the learned Family Court vide judgment and decree dated 9-4-2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner had also agreed to implement the judgment and decree of the learned Judge Family Court.
10. For all what has been discussed above, the judgment and decree of the learned 1st appellate Court dated 1-7-2009 is hereby set aside to the extent of enhancement of the dowry articles value and the judgment and decree of the learned Judge Family Court dated 9-4-2009 is upheld.
11. Petitioner is directed to comply with the statement made by his counsel within a period of one (1) month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.
12. With this direction this petition stands disposed of.