SYED ARSHAD ALI, J.---Through this single judgment, two separate writ petitions bearing Nos.8-A of 2017 and 274-A of 2016 are intended to be disposed of as both the petitions are between the same parties and are the outcome of single judgment and decree. Through Writ Petition No.8- A/2016, petitioner Liaqat Khan seeks constitutional jurisdiction of this court with the prayer:- "On acceptance of this writ petition for the declaration to the effect that the impugned consolidate judgment and decrees dated 14.10.2015 in Family Appeal No.17/FA passed by learned respondent No.3, to the above mentioned extent and dismissal of petitioner's appeal are wrong, illegal, against the law and facts, arbitrary, fanciful, perverse, without lawful authority, without jurisdiction, based on no evidence, ultra vires, hence liable to be struck down".
While through Writ Petition No.274-A/ 2016, petitioner Mst. Bakht Bibi prays that:- "Under the circumstances, it is respectfully prayed that on acceptance of the instant writ petition the impugned judgments and decrees of respondents Nos.2 and 3 may kindly be modified and suit of the petitioner be kindly accepted as prayed for. Any other relief which this court may deem fit in the interest of justice may kindly be granted to the petitioner."
2. Brief but essential facts of the case are that Mst. Bakht Bibi alias Wakht Bibi (hereafter referred to as plaintiff) filed Family Suit No.125/FC of 2011 against Liaqat Khan (hereinafter referred to as defendant) for:- "A. Possession of dowered house detailed in the heading of plaint.
B. Recovery of 08 tolas gold ornaments as dower or market value thereof along with Rs.49901/- cash amount of remaining dower.
C. Recovery of 05 tolas gold ornaments belonging to plaintiff as her dowry.
D. Recovery of dowry articles as per list annexed with the plaint or market value thereof.
E. Recovery of maintenance allowance of plaintiff No.1 from September, 2007 till institution of suit at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month and future maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.4000/- per month.
F. Recovery of Rs.35000/- as expenses incurred upon birth of minor plaintiff No.2.
G. Recovery of maintenance allowance of minor plaintiff No.2 at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month from her birth i.e. 22.04.2011 till institution of the suit and future maintenance at the rate of Rs.
7000/- per month.
According to averments of plaint, the marriage between the parties was solemnized in the year 2007 in lieu of dower of Rs.50,000/- out of which against Rs.99/-half share in the house was transferred to the plaintiff. Besides, it was also said that 08 tolas gold ornaments would additionally be given to her, which are still outstanding. At the time of Rukhsati, the parents of the plaintiff also gave dowry articles according to the list along with 5 tolas gold ornaments which are in possession of the defendant. Soon .after the marriage, the defendant started torturing the plaintiff and after six months of the marriage, she was expelled from the house of the defendant. Resultantly, plaintiff instituted Suit No.227/FC which was later on withdrawn on the basis of compromise. After that, the plaintiff rehabilitated with the defendant, however, the defendant failed to change his attitude and on 26th July, 2010, the defendant and his mother severely tortured her and expelled her from the house. During the desertion, minor plaintiff No. 2 was born and the entire expenses of her birth were met out by the parents of plaintiff. The defendant neither paid any attention nor provided any maintenance. Thereafter the plaintiff along with minor daughter is living with her parents and the defendant has refused to accept her claim.
3. The learned trial Court summoned the defendant who appeared and contested the suit by filing his written statement wherein he not only controverted the averments of plaint but claimed that the dower of the plaintiff was paid and the dowry articles were also taken back by the father of the plaintiff. He further asserted that minor is not his sibling and that he had divorced the plaintiff. The learned Family Judge, after framing issues and recording pro and contra evidence, passed following decree in favour of the plaintiff:-- "Prayer Alif: Stands dismissed.
Prayer Bay: Stands decreed to the extent of Rs.49901/-, while to the extent of dowered property stands dismissed.
Prayer Jeem: Stands dismissed.
Prayer Daal: Apart from already received items, claim of plaintiff No.1 stands decreed to the extent of washing machine, TV with its trolley and refrigerator.
Prayer Ha: Stands decreed to the extent of maintenance allowance @ Rs.2000/- from September, 2007 till 28.07.2008, and at the same rate from 26.07.2010 till expiration of Iddat period.
Prayer Kha: Stands decreed to the extent of Rs.15000/, Prayer Rey: Stands decreed to the extent of Rs.2000/- per month from birth of plaintiff No.2 i.e. 22.04.2011 till today, and onwards @ Rs.3000/- per month with 5 % annual increase in future till getting married.
Rest of the claim stands dismissed."
4. Both the parties assailed the judgment and decree of learned Family Judge, Abbottabad through separate Appeals No.07/FC and 17/FC of 2015 before the learned District Judge, Haripur which were entrusted to learned ADJ-III, Haripur for disposal. The learned Additional District Judge- III, Haripur, vide his consolidated judgment dated 14.10.2015 decided both the appeals in the following manner:-- "In the light of my above detailed issue-wise discussion, appeal No. 17/FC titled Mst. Bakht Bibi v.
Liaqat Khan is partially accepted by deciding issue No.2 and additional issue in positive and issue No.12 in negative, impugned judgment an decree of learned judge Family Court is modified to the extent of: Relief Alif i.e. the value of suit dower house i.e. Rs.99/- is decreed.
Relief Daal is modified and plaintiff/appellant is also entitled for dowry furniture or its market value. Relief Ray is also modified and future maintenance allowance of plaintiff No.2/appellant No.2 is hereby increased from 05 % per annum to 35% per annum. Rest of the prayer in appeal No.17/FA stand dismissed with no order as to costs."
Feeling dissatisfied, the parties have filed subject writ petitions.
5. The controversy between the parties before this Court can be narrowed down to the following issues:- I. Whether the learned appellate Court has rightly granted the value of Rs.99/- in lieu of the dowered house? ii. Whether the learned appellate court has rightly disbelieved the relinquishment deed dated 26.07.2008, despite the fact that the defendant has produced the scribe, marginal witnesses and the notary public, who attested the said deed? iii. Whether the findings of both the Courts below while granting maintenance, dowry articles, expenses to the plaintiff, are correct? iv. Whether the increase of 35 % per annum amount granted to the minor by the learned appellate court is correct?
6. To address the first question, this Court noted that the dower was initially fixed in the Nikah Nama as Rs.50,000/- and 08 tolas gold ornaments and details of the entire dower have been provided in deeds Nos.1532 and 1533 dated 09.02.2007. The execution of Nikah Nama and two deeds have not been denied by both the parties. The deed No. 1534 dated 09.02.2007, exhibited as Ex PW-1/1 shows that defendant has undertaken to pay an amount of Rs.2000/- as maintenance to the plaintiff, whereas deed No. 1533 Ex PW-1/2 mention the detail of the dower. According to this deed, the defendant has given half of the house in lieu of the aforesaid agreed dower to the plaintiff.
However, valuation for the purpose of execution of stamp paper and further proceedings was fixed as Rs.99/-. The learned trial Court while relying and believing in the documents Ex DW-1/2 dated 26.08.2008, whereby wife has allegedly received 30 tolas gold ornaments, has dismissed the claim of the plaintiff for dower, whereas learned appellate court while disbelieving agreement deed dated 26.08.2008 has allowed/decreed the dower amount as mentioned in Ex.PW-1/2, however, has misconstrued the contents of Ex.FW-1/2. According to this document Ex.PW-1/2, the husband has transferred his share (half of the house) to the plaintiff in lieu of the dower i.e. Rs.50,000/-and 08 tolas gold ornaments, however, at the bottom of the deed a value of Rs.99/- has been given for the purpose of execution of the deed. The same appears to avoid the consequences of the compulsory registration as under the provision of Transfer of Property Act and Registration Act, a deed whereby the property valuing more than Rs.100/- is transferred, is compulsorily registrable. However, it is evident from the deed Ex PW-1/2 that half of the house was given to the wife in lieu of the dower.
The learned appellate Court instead of B decreeing the half of the dower house or its market value, has decreed an amount of Rs.99/- as the value of the house. If the interpretation of the appellate Court is accepted then the same would deprive the wife from her dower which has been agreed in unequivocal terms. Hence, the only interpretation, discernable from the bare reading of Nikah Nama and Ex.PW-1/2 is that the husband has agreed to transfer the half of the house to the wife in lieu of dower. Hence findings of the learned appellate Court are not 'sustainable and accordingly modified to the effect that wife is entitled to half of the house mentioned in Ex. PW 1/2 or its market value.
7. Now moving the second question, whether the wife has received 30 tolas gold ornaments in lieu of dower house and has acknowledge the return of furniture to her father. Perusal of this deed would show that this deed was witnessed by Ghulam Raza and Jaffar Iqbal and was also duly notarized by Ijaz Hussain Shah Advocate as Notary Public. The defendant in order to prove this deed has not only produced the marginal witnesses Jaffar Iqbal and Ghulam Raza as DW-1 and DW-2, but has also produced Notary Public Ijaz Hussain Shah Advocate as CW-1. The scribe of the deed Abid Habib was also produced as DW-1. From examination and cross examination of the said witnesses, one can come to the conclusion that despite the fact that spouses were not in good terms and were litigating against each other, the wife was not identified by any male member, i.e. father or brother who are alive. Even CNIC number of the wife has not been mentioned in the deed.
It is by now settled principle of law that in cases in which executant of the document is a Parda Nasheen or illiterate woman notwithstanding the fact that she is knowing to the beneficiary of the documents and if she denies the execution of the document, the burden is on the beneficiary to establish the execution of the document. Although the defendant has produced all the witnesses relating to the documents but from perusal of their testimonies, the identity that it was the plaintiff who signed the documents, is doubtful. Indeed the identification of a Parda Nasheen or illiterate woman while executing the document must be established beyond doubt and court must be vigilant in taking extra care to ascertain the genuineness of such document. In our society the Parda Nasheen lady does not on her own executes the document relating to her valuable rights unless accompanied by the male member of her family. Even otherwise, from the close perusal of the testimony of the marginal witnesses and the Notary Public, it could not be established that 30 tolas gold ornaments were received by the plaintiff. It is not the execution of the document which would per-se establish the contents and transaction mentioned in the document but the contents/transaction qua payment of consideration of the document has to be independently established in case the executor denies the same. Hence the document dated 26.07.2008 and its contents have been rightly disbelieved by the appellate Court. In "Khawas Khan v. Shabbir Hussain Shah (2004 SCM R 1259)" the august Supreme Court held:- "In case of Pardanasheen lady, the party placing reliance upon the document would have to prove execution of said document that the Pardanasheen lady understood the terms of the deed and the deed was read over and explained to her. This Court has also time and again held that in case of illiterate Pardanasheen lady, it must be shown that deed was read over to her and the terms of the same were adequately explained to her and Court has to be cautious to see that the burden is satisfactorily discharged by the party in whose favour the deed was allegedly executed."
Similarly, in "Ghulam Muhammad v. Farooq Ahmed and others (2002 SCM R 1801)" it was held:- "It has been held by the superior Courts consistently that in the case of illeterate and Pardanashin lady, the Court should be very careful in recording findings as to the execution of any agreement by her if she had challenge the same on the ground that it had been obtained from her by fraud."
This view was re-affirmed by the honourable Supreme Court in "Arshad Khan v. Mst. Resham Jan and others (2005 SCMR 1589)" in the manner: - "This is settled principle of law that if the genuineness of a transaction entered on behalf of a Pardanashin lady is disputed by the said lady, heavy onus would lie on the person who asserts right through it, to prove the good faith and genuineness of the transaction as envisaged in Article 127 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, wherein it is provided that the burden of proving good faith of a transaction is on the party which is in a position of active confidence. This is settled law regarding the disposition of property of Pardanashin ladies and also the illiterate and ignorant women that the genuineness of the transaction of disposition must be established by the person who claims its genuineness or who is to be benefited by such transaction through the reliable, cogent and convincing, evidence."
In "Abdul Hameed through L.Rs. and others v. Shamsuddin and others (PLD 2008 Supreme Court 140)" it has been held:-- "In the present case, Mst. Halima Bai died before she appeared in the witness box and none of the two marginal witnesses of the sale-deed namely Qazi Mumtaz Ahmed and Qazi Ijaz Ahmed were produced to prove the execution of sale-deed dated 26-2-1969 and the genuineness of transaction of sale in favour of Abdul Named. The sole statement made by Abdul Hameed, vendee, on oath who was the beneficiary of the transaction, that Mst. Halima Bin, his maternal grandmother having sold the property for valuable consideration, executed the sale-deed of her free 'will, could not be considered sufficient in the facts, of the present case to prove the willingness of Mst. Halima Bai for transfer of the property and genuineness of the registered sale- deed dated 26-2-1969. The legal character of the document of title must be established through the independent evidence and Courts in such cases of doubtful character, must be extra careful to ascertain the genuineness of transaction. The first appellate Court as well as the High Court in second appeal after detail scrutiny of evidence, have concurrently held that the genuineness of sale allegedly executed by Mst. Halima Bai was not proved and notwithstanding the presumption of correctness attached with the registered sale-deed, the same being of disputed character, would not be ipso facto considered a valid document of title. Learned counsel for the petitioners without satisfying us that the concurrent findings of two Courts on a pure question of fact were suffering from any legal or factual infirmity, made an attempt to convince us that Mst. Feroza Khanum having purchased the property in good faith, derived title free of any legal defect. We are afraid, Mst. Feroza Khanum having stepped into the shoes of Abdul Hameed, who was not a lawful owner of the Property, would not get a better title and we having examined the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, have not been able to take any exception to the legal position and also have not been able to find out any substance in the grounds raised by the learned counsel in support of the present petition for interference. The petitioners have not claimed the benefit of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act and rightly so because Mst. Feroza Khanum, their predecessor-in-interest having the knowledge of dispute of title of property between Mst. Halima Bai and Abdul flamed purchased the same and notwithstanding the fact that petitioners were in continuous possession of the property as owner, they by efflux of time would not be able to improve their title."
5. Now coming to the third issue, perusal of the judgment of the learned appellate Court shows that while arriving to the conclusion, whereby the learned appellate Court has maintained the findings of the learned trial Court regarding the expenses incurred on the birth of the child, maintenance of the wife, and further allowing dowry furniture or its market value to the plaintiff, are based on correct appreciation of evidence. The same findings are neither perverse nor the learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner could point out any misreading or non reading of evidence by both the Courts below, hence do not call for any interference by this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. It is settled law that concurrent findings of both the courts below cannot be interfered with by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction even if the same appears to be erroneous, unless the said findings are based either on no evidence or misreading of evidence.
6. Lastly coming to the enhancement of maintenance of Rs.3000/- allowed/decreed for the minor.
The learned trial Court has allowed Rs.3000/- per month as maintenance for minor with 5% increase per annum, whereas learned appellate Court in the impugned judgment hand decree has enhanced the increase of 5% per annum to 35% per annum, however, the learned appellate Court has given no reason for the said increase. Neither the circumstances for the said increase nor financial position of the defendant/husband has been considered. Normally, the Courts allow 10 to 15 % increase on the principle amount of maintenance, keeping in view inflation and financial position. In the circumstances 15 % increase would be sufficient to meet the requirement of the child. Hence the findings/decree of the learned, appellate Court whereby it has allowed 35% per annum is modified and the decree is reduced to 15% increase per annum on the principle amount of Rs.3000/- granted as maintenance for the minor.
7. With these observations, the instant writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.