' ATIR MAHMOOD, J.---Through this writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the legality of judgment and decree dated 4-5-2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Lahore.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No,1 Mst. Huma Samuel (the respondent) filed a suit for dissolution of marriage, recovery of dowry articles and recovery of maintenance allowance with the averments that the marriage of the parties was solemnized on 8-11-1996 in accordance with Christian Marriages Act, 1872 and the parties lived together till last Sunday of October, 2001; that at the time of marriage, the respondent was given gifts, property, gold ornaments and other household articles as per list annexed with the plaint which are lying with the petitioner; that the petitioner-defendant developed illicit relations with women of ill-repute; that the plaintiff was beaten by the defendant as well as by his mother and sister time and again; that the plaintiff caught red-handed the defendant when he was busy in sexual intercourse with a woman who fled away on seeing the plaintiff; that the plaintiff has got hatred against the petitioner-defendant; that the defendant is employed in United Professional Movers International Islamabad with monthly income of Rs,30,000; that he has not paid any maintenance allowance to the plaintiff.
3. The suit was resisted by the petitioner who also filed contesting written statement and also annexed therewith a list of dowry articles. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and the evidence led by the parties was recorded. The suit of the respondent for dissolution of marriage was decreed vide order dated 22-2-2005. Learned Family Court vide judgment and decree dated 2-1-2010 decreed the suit of the respondent for recovery of dowry articles as per list annexed by the petitioner along with the written statement or alternate price of Rs,10,000. Vide said judgment and decree, the plaintiff was also declared entitled to recover maintenance allowance from the petitioner from 22-2-2001 to 22-2-2005 c Rs,2,000 per month. The petitioner did not challenge the said judgment and decree. However, feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed appeal to the extent of recovery of dowry articles which was allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Lahore vide judgment and decree dated 4-5-2010 and the suit of the respondent excluding gold ornaments and 50 suits or alternate price of Rs,400,000 thereof was decreed. Hence this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the appeal of the respondent before learned lower appellate court was barred by law in view of section 14(2)(b) of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 (the Act) as the decree for recovery of dowry articles was passed by the family court for less than Rs,30,000; that the list of dowry articles was undated and unsigned; that no receipt of purchase of dowry articles could be produced by the plaintiff; that no witness except brothers of the plaintiff could be brought in the witness box by her; that the judgment and decree of learned lower appellate court is against law and fact as the learned court below has failed to apply its judicious mind and take into consideration the evidence adduced by the parties, therefore, this writ petition be allowed, the impugned judgment and decree be set aside and the judgment and decree of learned family court be restored.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed this writ petition and fully supported the impugned judgment and decree. He avers that the learned lower appellate court has passed the judgment and decree under challenge after due appraisal of evidence and no illegality has been committed by it. He further contends that Section 14(2)(b) of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 is not attracted in this case. He avers that the instant writ petition having been filed after six months of passing of the impugned judgment and decree is hit by laches. He contends that during the execution proceedings, the petitioner undertook to pay the decretal amount while filing his affidavit before the executing court as Exh.C1 on 8-2-2011, therefore, he cannot resile from the said admission. Learned counsel prays for dismissal of the instant writ petition.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. The only issue put before this Court for determination is regarding suit of the respondent for recovery of dowry articles.
8. In order to prove her case, the respondent-plaintiff appeared before the court as PW.1 and submitted her affidavit as Exh.P1. The list of dowry articles was produced as Exh.P2. She deposed that she was given dowry articles valuing Rs,517,900. She narrated description of dowry articles. In cross-examination, she denied that her marriage was solemnized in a simple manner and that her father was not in such a financial position to give her dowry articles. She also denied that list of dowry articles is forged. She admitted that list of dowry articles is remembered by her. She also narrated the details of the gold ornaments. She also stated that Asif Javed and Kashif Javed are the witnesses of the list. She denied that dowry articles worth Rs,10,000 were given to her. PW.2 Kashif Javed and PW.3 Asif Samuel also supported the version of the plaintiff in verbatim.
9. On the other hand, the petitioner did not appear himself in the witness box. On his behalf, his attorney Justin Austin appeared as DW.1. He produced his power of attorney as Exh.D1 and affidavit as Exh.D2 (which have wrongly been written as Exh.P1 and Exh.P2). He deposed that dowry articles worth Rs,10,000 were given to the respondent and the list of dowry articles which has been produced by the respondent is forged and fictitious. In cross-examination, he showed his ignorance that one brother of the respondent resides in Libya and supports her. A specific suggestion was put to this witness that the gold ornaments were given to the respondent which was denied by him. However, he gave a description of certain documents which according to him were given to the respondent in dowry. He admitted that father of the respondent is a Priest, however, denied that the donations were used to be given to father of the respondent. He stated that the list of dowry articles of Rs,10,000 was given to the father of the defendant. He denied that list of dowry articles worth Rs,6,00,000 was given to the defendant. DW-2 Shakeel Naveed deposed in line with the statement made by DW.1.
10. Perusal of evidence shows that the plaintiff and her witnesses are consistent on the point that she was given dowry articles as claimed by her in the plaint. Despite lengthy cross-examination, nothing could be brought out from the said witnesses which could support the version of the petitioner or even weaken the stance taken by the respondent. It has come on record that one brother of the plaintiff lady resides in Libya and provides financial, supports to her and her parents.
Even otherwise, the father of the respondent holds the office of Priest which is deemed respectable in the Christian Community. It is custom of our society that the people give gifts in shape of 'donations' to the people holding office of Imam, Priest, Gaddi Nashin etc, therefore, giving of donations to the father of the respondent who is admittedly a priest, cannot be ruled out. In the circumstances, the parents of the respondent seemed to be with reasonable financial status enough to give dowry articles to their daughter which custom is so strong in this society that the people, to meet this objective; even do not hesitate to get loans from others. Mere non-production of purchase receipts or non-signing of list of dowry articles by the plaintiff lady is not sufficient to disentitle her from recovery of her dowry articles. In my considered view, the learned Judge Family Court has erred while allowing the dowry articles to the respondent to the extent of Rs,10,000 only whereas the learned lower appellate court has rightly enhanced the alternate price to Rs,400,000 keeping in view the financial status of the parties, wear and tear coupled with the fact that the plaintiff lady was able to give details of dowry articles given to her at the time of marriage. Learned lower appellate court while enhancing the alternate price of dowry articles has discussed the matter at length and gave detailed reasons to reach the said conclusion. The findings of learned lower appellate court are in accordance with law which are immune from interference by this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case reported as "Mst. Farah Naz v. Judge Family Court, Sahiwal (PLD 2006 SC 457) wherein it has been held that:-- "It was none of the business of the High Court in writ jurisdiction to substitute its own findings for the findings recorded by the court of appeal after due appraisal of evidence. We would, therefore, set aside the judgment of the High Court as well as that of the Family Court decreeing the suit in the sum of Rs,4,00,000 and restore the judgment of the appellate Court accepting the claim of the appellant, as pleaded in the suit."
' Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any B illegality, irregularity, misreading or non-reading of evidence in the impugned judgment and decree.
11. The emphasis of learned counsel for the petitioner is on the point that the appeal of the respondent was not competent before the learned lower appellate court in view of Section 14(2)(b) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964. The said provision is reproduced below:-- "14(2) No appeal shall lie from a decree by a Family Court--
(a) ...
(b) for dower or dowry not exceeding Rs,30,000.
(c) ..."
' The above provision reads loudly that no appeal shall lie against a decree passed for dower or dowry not exceeding Rs,30,000. At the same time, an appeal against decree of the family court is provided under Section 14 of the Act which, not to speak of decree of suit for recovery of dowry articles less than Rs,30,000, is available even against dismissal of such suit. When confronted with, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to satisfy the court in this regard. In my considered view, the embargo of section 14(2)(b) of the Act is placed on the defendant only and not the plaintiff in any manner. Therefore, the plaintiff being aggrieved of having passed the decree to the extent of Rs,10,000 as alternate price of dowry articles had all rights to challenge such decree at a higher forum. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is accordingly repelled.
12. In view of the above, this writ petition is without any substance. Dismissed.