SHUJAAT ALI KHAN, J.---Unnecessary details apart, the petitioner filed a suit for dissolution of marriage and recovery of dowry articles worth Rs.9,80,800/- which was partially decreed by the learned Judge Family Court, Bhowana (the learned Trial Court) vide ex-parte judgment and decree, dated 25.11.2014 and she was held entitled to recover Rs. 75,000/- as alternate price of the dowry articles. Being dissatisfied with the verdict of the learned Trial Court, both the parties filed their independent appeals. The learned Additional District Judge, Chiniot (learned Appellate Court) through consolidated judgment and decree, dated 20.01.2016, dismissed both the appeals; hence this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though the petitioner proved her claim, as set out in the plaint, but the learned Trial Court curtailed the same manifold whose findings were illegally upheld by learned Appellate Court; that when DW-1 admitted in cross-examination that the dowry articles were shifted to his house on tractor trolley the petitioner was entitled to decree for recovery of dowry articles as prayed for and that though the petitioner raised number of substantial questions before learned Appellate Court but the same were not attended to. Relies on Shafique Sultan v. Mst. Asma Firdous and others (2017 SCMR 393).
3. Conversely, learned counsel for respondent No.1, while defending the impugned judgments and decrees of the courts below, states that concurrent findings of facts cannot be upset by this Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction; that when the petitioner failed to prove sound financial status of her parents, at the time of her marriage, she was not entitled to the relief claimed in the suit; that both the PWs admitted that the parents of the petitioner were dependent on their income from 2/3 acres of agricultural land, thus, they were not in a position to give dowry articles of such magnitude as claimed by the petitioner in the suit; that the PWs contradicted on the point of preparation of list of dowry articles; that a glance over the list of dowry articles shows that exaggerated prices were mentioned therein.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the documents, annexed with this petition, as well as the case-law cited at the bar .
5. According to recitals of the plaint, the petitioner was given dowry articles valuing Rs.9,80,800/-. It is well established by now that financial status of parents of bride is determining factor to adjudge the quantum of dowry articles. Insofar as the case in hand is concerned, admittedly, parents of the petitioner at the time of her marriage, were dependent on their agricultural income being received by them from 2/3 acres of land, thus, it cannot be believed that they had extra ordinary source of income to give dowry articles as claimed in the plaint.
6. It is very astonishing to note that in his cross-examination the petitioner showed her inability to specify the detail of dowry articles or name of the shop keeper or the shop from where the dowry articles were purchased.
There is no denying the fact that hard and fast rules contained in Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 are not applicable to familial matters, however, a plaintiff in such suit is bound to prove her claim as set out in the plaint but the said onus was not discharged by the petitioner.
7. As per law laid down by the Apex Court of the country in the case of Farhat Jabeen v. Muhammad Safdar and others (2011 SCMR 1073) concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below cannot be upset in Constitutional jurisdiction until and unless they are proved to be perverse or result of arbitrariness which is not the position in the case in hand.
8. For what has been discussed above, I see no force in this petition which is dismissed with no order as to costs.