' ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR, J.---Petitioner has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 to impugn the judgment and decree dated 9.9.2014 passed by learned District Judge Mandi Baha-ud-Din whereby appeal filed by respondent No.3 has been accepted setting aside the judgment and decree dated 28.2.2014 passed by learned Judge Family Court Mandi Baha-ud-Din.
2. Brief facts leading to this writ petition are that Shamim Akhtar/petitioner filed a suit for recovery of bridal gifts against respondent No.3 which was partially decreed in her favour only to the extent of gold ornaments weighing 1 Tola or its alternate market value vide judgment and decree dated 28.2.2014 passed by learned Judge Family Court Mardi Baha-ud-Din. Being dissatisfied Imtiaz Ahmad/ respondent No.3 assailed the said judgment and decree through appeal before the District Judge Mandi Baha-ud-Din which was accepted vide judgment and decree dated 9.9.2014 and the judgment and decree dated 28.2.2014 of the learned Judge Family Court was set aside.
3. Being aggrieved petitioner has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that the impugned judgment and decree dated 9.9.2014 passed by learned lower appellate court is against law and facts and based on wrongful exercise of jurisdiction causing miscarriage of justice and liable to set aside.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. It is an established principle that findings on fact recorded by a competent court in exercise of lawful jurisdiction cannot be agitated by invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of A Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 unless the same suffer from any legal infirmity, jurisdictional error or perversity causing serious miscarriage of justice.
6. Petitioner's plea is that at the time of marriage solemnized on 6.4.2008 bridal gifts worth Rs.1,21,500/- as detailed in the plaint were given to her which were lying in possession of her husband/respondent No.3 when she was forcibly ousted from his house. In'the written statement respondent denied the assertions with the contentions that neither any bridal gift was given to the petitioner nor any such article is in his possession.
7. Record transpires that prior to the filing of the above referred suit for recovery of bridal gifts on 28.11.2011 the petitioner had earlier filed a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance, expenses of delivery of minor son namely Jafar Imtiaz and dowry articles worth Rs.3,11,480/- against the respondent on 22.9.2010. In the said suit petitioner did not mention about any bridal gift allegedly lying in possession of the respondent.
8. Bridal gifts fall within the ambit of personal property and belongings of a wife i.e. Item No.9 of the Schedule in terms of Section 5 of the Family Courts Act, 1964 which confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the Family Court to hear the claim of such matters. The term "personal property and belongings of a wife" has already been explicated by this Court in the case titled Muhammad Akram v. Hajra Bibi (PLD 2007 Lah. 515) and maintained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case titled Syed Mukhtar Hussain Shah v. Mst. Saba Imtiaz and others (PLD 2011 SC 260).
Relevant extract from the case of Muhammad Akram (supra) reads below:-- "Such personal property or belonging referred to in Entry No.9, in my considered view, is a residuary provision, which enables the wife to recover through the process of the Family Courts Act, 1964, whatever property she has acquired during the subsistence of the marriage, which is not the part of her dowry, through her own independent means or even through the means provided by her husband, such as her clothes, ornaments and items of personal use and nature, this may also include anything which has been gifted to the wife by the husband or any of his or her relatives or the friends; such property and belonging may be the one acquired by the wife out of the money given to her by the husband, her saving from household allowance, or pocket money, from the money provided by her parents and relatives."
9. It is expedient to note that second proviso to Section 7(2) of the Family Courts Act, 1964 provides that a plaint for dissolution of marriage may contain all claims relating to dowry, maintenance, dower, personal property and belongings of a wife, custody of children and visitation rights of parents to meet their children. Petitioner's failure in agitating the claim for recovery of bridal gifts at the time of filing of her earlier suit for recovery of maintenance allowance etc. Therefore clearly manifests that no bridal gift was in possession of the respondent. Had it been so the petitioner would have claimed recovery of the same at the time of filing of earlier suit for maintenance allowance etc. Even the contents of Nikahnama between the parties do not mention about alleged bridal gifts. Petitioner has intentionally relinquished her claim for recovery of bridal gifts, if any, at the time of filing of earlier suit for recovery of maintenance allowance etc. It is important to note that petitioner while facing cross-examination had admitted that she filed the second suit on the basis of anger against the respondent. In view of the above learned lower appellate court while scrutinizing the parties' evidence has rightly formulated the opinion that petitioner's claim regarding recovery of bridal gifts appears to be an afterthought.
10. For the above reasons the impugned judgment and decree dated 9.9.2014 passed by learned lower appellate court does not suffer from any legal infirmity, jurisdictional error or perversity.
Petitioner has no case to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. This writ petition having no merit is dismissed in limine.