SYED MUHAMMAD ATTIQUE SHAH, J.---Through this single judgment, this Court shall dispose of two writ petitions, having common question of law and facts involved therein. The particulars of the writ petitions are as under:--
(i) Writ Petition No,590-A/2017 Mst. Saira Bano v. Syed Saqi Hussain Shah etc.
(ii) Writ Petition No,453-A/2017 Syed Saqi Hussain Shah v. Mst. Saira Bano etc.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of these writ petitions are that petitioner/plaintiff Mst. Saira Bano instituted a family suit for recovery of dower of Rs,200,000/-, recovery of gold ornaments weighing three tolas, recovery of past maintenance Q Rs,5,000/- per month from October, 2014 till April, 2015.
The learned Judge Family Court summoned respondent No, 1, who contested the said suit by submitting his written statement. Learned Judge Family Court, after recording evidence of the parties and hearing arguments decreed the suit of the petitioner vide judgment and decree dated 31.10.2016, in following terms:-- "As sequel to my above issue wise findings and expositions, the suit of the plaintiff against the defendant No,1 is decreed as follows: a) Relief claimed in Juzz "Alif" regarding recovery of Haq Mahr Rs, 200,000/- as per Nikahnama and stamp paper No,3304 dated 07.08.2013 is hereby decreed. b) Relief claim in Juzz "Bay" regarding recovery of 03 tolas gold ornaments is hereby dismissed. c) Relief claim in Juzz "Jeem" regarding past maintenance allowance of plaintiff is hereby dismissed."
Both the parties preferred their separate appeals before the learned Appellate Court, who vide consolidated judgment and decree dated 03.04.2017, whereby, the appeal filed by petitioner/plaintiff, Mst. Saira Bano was partially accepted and findings of the learned Judge Family Court to the extent of past maintenance allowance were set aside, whereas, appeal filed by respondent/defendant, Syed Saqi Shah was dismissed.
3. Feeling aggrieved, both the petitioner and respondent have approached to this Court against the judgment and decree of the learned Appellate Court dated 04.02.2016 by filing the abovementioned writ petitions.
4. Arguments of the learned counsel for the parties heard and the available record perused.
5. Perusal of the record reveals that present petitioner has filed a suit for recovery of dower of Rs,200,000/- along with three tolas of gold ornaments duly mentioned in Nikah Nama Ex.PW 2/1 dated 07.08.2013 and has also claimed maintenance from October, 2014 till April, 2015 at the rate of Rs,5,000/- per month. The defendant/respondent No,1 submitted his written statement and stated therein that the entire dower has been paid. Moreover, petitioner is not entitled for the maintenance being self deserted. Petitioner produced PW-1, petition writer, who exhibited 'Iqrar Namas' Ex.PW 1/1 to Ex.PW 1/3. He has also exhibited extract of his register as Ex.PW 1/4. He was cross-examined but nothing material favouring the respondent No,1 could be extracted from him.
Petitioner also produced PW-2, Nikah Khawan, who has supported her contention. Likewise, petitioner produced PW-3, Notary Public, who attested agreements Ex.PW 1/1 to Ex.PW 1/3. The petitioner also produced Stamp Vendor as PW-4, who recorded his statement in her support and PW-5 appeared as witness of Nikah Nama Ex.PW 2/1, while PW-6 appeared as attorney of the petitioner and recorded his statement in support of the plaint. Likewise, respondent/defendant No,1 has also produced evidence in support of his contentions. After recording evidence of the parties and hearing arguments suit of the petitioner for recovery of dower of Rs,200,000/- was decreed in her favour vide judgment and decree dated 31.10.2016, whereas suit to the extent of three tolas gold ornaments and past maintenance was dismissed. Both the parties filed their appeal, wherein appeal of the present petitioner to the extent of maintenance was accepted, whereas again her claim of three tolas gold ornaments was not considered by the Appellate Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has forcefully contended that she was also entitled for the recovery of 3 tolas gold ornaments and referred to the contents of the plaint and stated that the above referred gold ornaments were given to the petitioner at the time of Nikah but later the same were snatched by her mother-in-law. However, the alleged act of snatching has not been established through evidence recorded by the petitioner. Moreover, the act of said snatching was absolutely a personal specific act against the petitioner but she did not opt to appear in support of her that "contention.
Likewise, PW-6 appeared before the learned trial Court as her attorney, but he has also not stated anything specifically regarding the alleged snatching, therefore, this Court is of the firmed view that both the learned lower Courts below have properly addressed to the said claim of the petitioner and her claim has been rightly rejected to that extent.
6. Now coming to the claim of petitioner in W.P. No,453-A/2017, this Court has noted that while hearing the writ petition in motion, the learned counsel for petitioner has categorically stated before the Court that petitioner is only challenging finding of learned Appellate Court to the extent of maintenance allowance and his this very contention was recorded vide order sheet dated 24.05.2017 by this Court. The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner regarding maintenance allowance is not worth consideration because he could not prove through cogent and confidence inspiring evidence that the respondent No,1 was self deserted. This Court has scanned the entire evidence produced by petitioner but could not find any support regarding plea of self desertion of respondent No, 1.
7. By now it is established principle of law that findings on disputed questions of fact arrived at by the Courts below can only be disturbed when the same are found to be illegal, arbitrary, perverse and fanciful. However, perusal of entire record transpires that both the learned lower Courts below have arrived at a proper and just conclusion after discussing entire material available on record of the case. Moreover, there is no misreading or non-reading of evidence in the impugned findings of the learned lower Courts below, therefore, this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 199 of Constitution, cannot interfere with the finding of the learned lower Courts, which are based on sound and cogent reasons.
8. Keeping in view the above stated facts and circumstances of the case and discussion made thereupon, this Court reached to the inescapable conclusion that both the writ petitions being bereft of merits, thus the same are dismissed.