' MAMOON RASHID SHEIKH, J.---The petitioner has brought the instant petition against the judgment and decree dated 3-6-2013 passed by the learned Judge Family Court Sohawa District Jhelum (respondent No,3) and the consolidated judgment and decree dated 3-1-2014 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge Jhelum (respondent. No,2) whereby respondent No,1 's suit for recovery of maintenance, dowry, gold jewellery and dower has been partially decreed against the petitioner and the petitioner's counter claim for restitution of conjugal rights has also been decreed albeit conditional upon payment of maintenance/dower to respondent No,1
2. The facts relevant for the present purposes are to the effect that the Nikah ceremony of the parties was performed on 24-1-2005 and Rukhsati took place on 13-12-2009. The parties do not have any children. The marital relationship between the parties is stated to be not a happy one.
The petitioner is stated to have taken a second wife without permission of respondent No,1.
Separation took place between the parties in or around August, 2011 whereafter respondent No,1 is stated to be residing with her parents. Subsequently, respondent No,1 filed the aforementioned suit against the petitioner who contested it by filing his defence and also seeking a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. Issues were framed and evidence recorded and through the impugned judgment dated 3-6-2013 respondent No,3 passed decrees in favour of the parties in the following terms:- "For what has been discussed above, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed in her favour in such manner that she is entitled for the recovery of her maintenance allowance since 18-8-2011 till the date @ Rs,2500/- per month and onwards at the same rate with 10% annual increase.
' The suit of the plaintiff for recovery of dowry articles is also decreed in her favour in such a manner that she is entitled for the recovery of dowry articles in accordance with list Exh. P.1 minus certain articles mentioned at serial Nos.96, 101 and 102 or in the alternative prices of the said dowry articles. In case of payment of the prices of any of the dowry articles 20% depreciation charges withheld.
' That suit of the plaintiff for the recovery of dower of a house mentioned in column No,16 of the Nikahnama or in the alternative price thereof as Rs,100000/- is also decreed in her favour.
' The suit of the defendant for the restitution of conjugal rights is also decreed in his favour provided he pays the plaintiff previous maintenance amount since 18-8-2011 till date @ Rs,2500/- per month and delivers her possession of the house mentioned in the nikahnama in column No,16 or in alternative prices thereof Rs,100000/-."
3. Feeling aggrieved both parties filed appeals. The appeals were, however, dismissed by respondent No,2 through the impugned consolidated judgment and decree(s) dated 3-1-2014.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned judgments and decrees have been passed by respondents Nos.2 and 3 by misreading and non-reading the evidence brought on the record. Respondents Nos.2 and 3 further erred by not considering the fact that the claim of respondent No,1 vis-a-vis her dower was based on a forged and fabricated Nikahnama. Contends that in any event a decree for recovery of dower could not have been passed in favour of respondent No,1 as the dower on the face of it was deferred and not prompt. Respondents Nos.2 and 3 have, therefore, fallen into error.
5. Further submits that the impugned judgments and decrees are arbitrary, perverse and based on conjectures and surmises. Respondents Nos.2 and 3 failed to appreciate that respondent No,1 had adopted family planning methods against the wishes of the petitioner and had thus forced the petitioner to take a second wife. Indeed, respondent No,1 gave her consent to the petitioner's second marriage. Further contends that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have further erred by passing a conditional decree for restitution of conjugal rights in the petitioner's favour whereas the facts and circumstances of the case warranted that an unconditional decree for restitution of conjugal rights be passed in the petitioner's favour.
6. Relies on "Syed Mukhtar Hussain Shah v. Mst. Saba Imtiaz and others PLD 2011 SC 260 and Saadia Usman and another v. Muhammad Usman lqbal Jadoon" 2009 SCM R 1458 in support of his contentions.
7. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the record.
8. Respondents Nos.2 and 3 have considered the evidence brought on the record at considerable length before passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Their decisions, in no small measure, are based on the admissions made by the petitioner himself and his witnesses. Besides making admissions vis-a-vis respondent No, 1 's dowry the petitioner also admitted that a private complaint is pending against him for taking a second wife without the requisite permissions. The petitioner has further admitted that he has not paid any maintenance to respondent No,1 since 18- 8-2011. The learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to make out a case of misreading and non- reading of evidence. The learned counsel has, however, been unable to point out any such instance from the impugned judgments or to show that the afore-referred admissions have not been made by the petitioner and/or his witnesses. The learned counsel has similarly been unable to substantiate any of his contentions re the Nikahnama being forged or containing interpolations.,
9. The record further reveals that the petitioner kept both wives in the same dwelling house which resulted in souring of relations between the petitioner and respondent No,1. Respondents Nos.2 and 3 have, therefore, come to the concurrent conclusion that this act of the petitioner made the life of respondent No,1 quite miserable, therefore, she was justified in refusing to go back to the marital home and to demand that her maintenance and dower be paid to her. As mentioned above, the petitioner has admittedly not paid any maintenance to respondent No,1 since 18-8-2011. The dower as per the Nikahanama was to be paid by the petitioner in the form of a house or Rs,100000/- in lieu thereof. It was in this perspective that the conditional decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed in favour of the petitioner.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in any event the entry in column No,16 of the Nikahnama relating to dower clearly shows that the dower is deferred and not prompt. In view thereof a decree for recovery of dower or indeed the conditional decree for restitution of conjugal rights could not have been passed. I am afraid this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable in the eye of the law as it has been established on the record that the petitioner entered into his second marriage without obtaining the requisite permission from the Arbitration Counsel concerned. He is being prosecuted for taking a second wife without the requisite permission(s). The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the purported permission (Mark-E) given by respondent No,1 to the petitioner. To enter into the second marriage.. Mark-E does not come to the aid of the petitioner firstly for the reason that respondent No,1 was never confronted with the said document and secondly it was brought on the record in the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner and was not formally proved.
Moreover, the petitioner has not brought any document on the record to show that he had obtained the requisite permission from the Arbitration Counsel concerned for entering into his second marriage. Resultantly, the petitioner is liable to forthwith pay the dower to respondent No,1, even if, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted that the dower was deferred and not prompt. Reliance in this regard is placed on the provisions of Section 6(5) (a) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. For ease of reference the provisions of Section 6 of the Ordinance, ibid., are being reproduced hereunder:-- "6. Polygamy.-- (1) No man, during the subsistence of an existing marriage, shall, except with the previous permission in writing of the Arbitration Council, contract another marriage, nor shall any such marriage, contracted without such permission be registered under this Ordinance.
(2) An application for permission under subsection (1) shall be submitted to the Chairman in the prescribed manner, together with the prescribed fee and shall state the reasons for the proposed marriage, and whether the consent of existing wife or wives has been obtained thereto.
(3) On receipt of the application under subsection (2) the Chairman shall ask the applicant and his existing wife or wives each to nominate a representative, and the Arbitration Council so constituted may, if satisfied that the proposed marriage is necessary and just, grant subject to such conditions, if any, as may be deemed fit, the permission applied for.
(4) In deciding the application the Arbitration Council shall record its reasons for the decision and any party may, in the prescribed manner, within the prescribed period and on payment of the prescribed fee, prefer any application for revision to the Collector concerned and his decision shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court.
(5) Any man who contracts another marriage without the permission of the Arbitration Council shall:--
(a) Pay immediately the entire amount of the dower, whether prompt or deferred, due to the existing wife or wives, which amount, if not so paid shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue; and
(b) On conviction upon complaint be punishable with simple imprisonment which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both." (emphasis supplied)
As will be clear the language of Section 6(5) (a), ibid., is very A clear and does not admit of any interpretation other than the one that in case a man contracts a second marriage without obtaining the requisite permission from the Arbitration Council concerned then he shall be liable to immediately pay to his existing wife/wives the entire amount of the dower due, whether prompt or deferred. As mentioned above there is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner obtained the necessary permission from the Arbitration Council concerned. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, therefore, repelled.
11. The judgments cited at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
12. Needless to add that it is a case of concurrent findings of fact. It is settled law that in absence of a jurisdictional defect this Court in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction normally does not interfere in concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the learned Courts below unless a case of grave miscarriage of justice is made out. Reliance is placed on the judgments reported as Waqar Haider Butt v. Judge, Family Court and others (2009 SCM R 1243), (Shamshad Begum v. Mst. Huma Begum and others (2008 SCM R 79), Arshad Mehmood v. Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi and 5 others (2001 SCM R 516), Haji Abdullah and 10 others v. Yahya Bakhtiar (PLD 2001 SC 158) and Hunif & others v. Malik Ahmad Shah and another (2001 SCM R 577).
13. I find that the impugned judgments do not suffer from any jurisdictional defect or that they are arbitrary or perverse.
14. Under the circumstances the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed in limine.