MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.---Facts of the case in brief are that respondent No,2 filed a suit for recovery of dowry articles against the petitioner as per list annexed with the plaint or in alternate their price of Rs,3,92,400/- which was duly contested by the petitioner by filing written statement. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned Judge Family Court framed necessary issues, recorded the evidence of the parties thereupon and vide judgment dated 17.06.2017 decreed the suit of the respondent in the following terms:-- "Plaintiff is held entitled to recover articles of ordinary usage and kitchen utensils etc. as per list Exh.P-2, enlisted as 1-43, 51- 63, 66-68,70-78,81-84 or its alternate value amounting to Rs,2,50,000/-."
2. Being aggrieved the petitioner preferred appeal before the learned Appellate Court/Addl. District Judge, who vide judgment dated 24.10.2017 remanded the matter to the learned Judge Family Court with the following observations:- "The case is remanded to the learned trial court with the direction to decide the case afresh while keeping into consideration the above discussed facts. If the parties intend to adduce evidence with reference to CD they be allowed to produce the same in accordance with law and procedure, otherwise decide the fate of the suit in accordance with the evidence and record which is part of the file."
3. In post remand proceedings the learned Judge Family Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 26.01.2018 held respondent entitled to recover Rs,50,000/- as alternate price in lieu of the dowry articles. Being still dissatisfied the petitioner has filed the instant Constitutional petition.
4. At the very outset attention of the learned counsel was drawn to the amended provisions of subsection (2)(b) of $ection 14 of the Punjab Family Courts (Amendment) Act, 2015 whereby remedy of filing of appeal against the decree of dowry articles upto the amount of Rs,1,00,000/- has been prohibited, therefore, if Constitutional Petition is entertained against such a decree it would amount to mockery of the statutory amendment. The learned counsel, nevertheless, insisted that he be permitted to argue his case.
5. His main stress was that in the earlier suit filed by the respondent at Gujranwala she claimed dowry articles worth Rs,8,40,000/- which was dismissed and now at Sargodha she claimed dowry articles of the value of Rs,3,92,400/-; that neither the list of dowry articles was prepared at the time of marriage nor the respondent has produced any receipts to substantiate her stance; that nothing in the shape of dowry articles was given to the respondent; that the petitioner proved this fact through cogent and reliable evidence but the learned Judge Family Court has decreed the suit of the respondent on the basis of surmises and conjectures.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. It is a matter of observance that in family disputes, particularly in suit for recovery of dowry articles in most of the cases both the parties try to conceal true facts qua its quantity, therefore, it becomes the duty of the Court to decide the controversy in a manner so that no injustice could be done to either side. In order to fulfill this obligation a Family Court being a quasi judicial forum could draw and follow its own procedure provided it is not against the principles of fair hearing, trial and equity etc. Reliance is placed on case reported as Muhammad Tabish Naeem Khan v.
Addl. District Judge, Lahore and others (2014 SCM R 1365).
7. In the instant case, throughout the proceedings the petitioner denied giving of any dowry articles to the respondent by her parents. However, the respondent with the permission of the Court produced conversation of the parties in the shape of CD Ex.P4 and written dialogue Ex.P4/1. In the said conversation the petitioner admitted possession of having certain dowry articles and showed his willingness to return the same subject to certain conditions. This conversation though denied by the petitioner but his witness Mehdi Khan while appearing as DW2 identified the voice of the petitioner. In the presence of admission from the witness of the petitioner there appeared no need for seeking the forensic report as such the learned Judge Family Court was not justified in discarding this vital piece of evidence. Even if for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that CD is not admissible in evidence, even then the court in such circumstances cannot ignore the admission on the part of a witness by turning a blind eye while dispensing justice in between the rival parties. The Family Court should and must when the circumstances so demand, of its own exercise the authority in the interest of administration of justice and ensure that rights of any of the parties are not effected and the misery of the litigants is not compounded. A fact which is admitted by either of the parties or their witnesses cannot be ignored in such a brash manner. In family suits this is all the more necessary and may be the reasons for enacting a special statute conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the family courts to decide these specified family disputes.
8. Furthermore, conduct of the petitioner shows that he is not a truthful witness. According to him he entered into second marriage with his paternal cousin but his witness stated that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized outside the family. Such a person cannot be expected to depose the truth. No doubt the respondent in the suit filed at Gujranwala made exaggerated claim qua dowry articles but she confessed this fact while stating that the said suit was filed by her counsel without her instructions. Even otherwise, as discussed supra in such like matters usually both the parties do not disclose true fact, therefore, merely on that account the respondent cannot be non- suited.
9. So far as the contention of the petitioner that the respondent has failed to produce any valid receipts to substantiate her claim is concerned, suffice it to observe that the articles contained in the list (except gold ornaments) are of ordinary nature and usually given to a bride at the time of marriage, as such non-submission of its receipts are not fatal. Reliance is placed on case reported as Muhammad Habib v. Mst. Safia Bibi and others (2008 SCM R 1584).
10. The learned Judge Family Court while passing impugned judgment and decree has caused grave injustice to the respondent-lady, who being the weakest segment of the society may not be able to challenge the same at the appropriate forum, however, since an illegality has come into the notice of this Court and the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to defend it, therefore, in exercise of its supervisory powers and parental jurisdiction, this Court is inclined to rectify the same in order to do substantive justice. Therefore, while dismissing this writ petition, impugned judgment and decree of the learned Judge Family Court dated 26.01.2018 is modified in the terms that the respondent is entitled to recover dowry articles as per list Ex. P2 except gold ornaments and items mentioned at Sr. Nos, 45 to 50 or in alternate their price of Rs,2,50,000/-.
11. Copy of this judgment be sent to respondent No, 2 for information.