The petitioner instituted a suit for dissolution of marriage, recovery of dowry articles and maintenance allowance while leveling certain allegations against Respondent No. 3, which was resisted by him through filing of written statement that only 48 items out of the list of the dowry articles appended by the petitioner were retained by him. The learned Judge Family Court after settling issues and recording evidence of the parties decreed the suit of petitioner as follows: "Keeping in view my findings in Issue No. 1, the plaintiff is entitled to get maintenance allowance at rate of Rs. 4000/- for her Iddat period and get dowry articles as mentioned in written statement along with Rs. 30,000/- in alternate of remaining dowry articles. So, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed accordingly."
Being despondent, both the parties preferred their independent appeals before the learned lower Appellate Court, wherein the petitioner sought for the recovery of dowry articles as per her claim in the plaint, whereas Respondent No. 3 for reduction of decretal amount. The learned Addl. District Judge vide consolidated judgment dated 24.08.2013 dismissed the appeal of petitioner as a whole, however cross appeal was partially accepted and impugned judgment to the extent of additional amount of Rs. 30,000/- was set aside, however, she was entitled to recover 48 items admitted by Respondent No. 3 as per his written statement or its alternative value Rs. 200000/-, which has been assailed by the petitioner through the instant Constitutional Petition.
2.Respondent No. 3 has already been proceeded against ex parte by this Court vide order dated 01.03.2016.
3.This is not the ease wherein a bridegroom had refused the delivery of dowry articles to a bride by the parents. The petitioner in her plaint claimed for the recovery of 66 items of the dowry articles or in alternative its price amounting to Rs. 315152/-, and she while appearing as F'W.1 corroborated her version, which was also supported by Muhammad Hussain PW.2, but despite undergoing the test of lengthy cross-examination, their veracity could not be shaken, who remained consistent on vital aspects of the case. In order to strengthen her case petitioner also tendered in evidence receipts for purchase of dowry articles (Exh.P1 to Exh.P12). Conversely, Respondent No. 3 in his statement admitted that dowry articles were given to petitioner with a stance that these were only 48 in number and failed to refute the claim of the petitioner regarding rest of the articles. The statement of supporting witness of Respondent No. 3 Faryad Ali (DW.2) is not of much significance and cannot be given any weight for the simple reason that during the cross-examination, he frankly conceded that he was not participant of marriage ceremony, who also admitted that terms and conditions of Nikah were not settled before him. He further stated during the cross-examination that dowry articles were not transported in his presence, whereas he worded that lastly 10/12 days before his examination, he witnessed the dowry articles lying in the house of Respondent No. 3.
4. The accumulative effect of the evidence as well as above referred discussion is that the learned Judge Family Court was justified in awarding Rs. 30,000/- for the remaining dowry articles, which were not admitted by Respondent No. 3 in the written statement, but the learned lower Appellate Court without showing any valid reason set it aside, which finding being against the evidence on record cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
5. Resultantly, the instant Constitutional Petition is allowed, the judgment and decree of the learned lower Appellate Court is set aside and that of learned Trial Court is restored with no order as to costs.