MUZAMIL AKHTAR SHABIR, J. -- Through this Constitutional petition, the petitioner has called in question the judgment and decrees dated 23.02.2019 and 10.03.2017, whereby the Courts below have concurrently decreed the claim of the plaintiff/respondent No. 3 and she was held entitled to recover her future maintenance allowance Rs.
4000/- per month with 10% annual increase subject to the rehabilitation with the petitioner and she was held entitled to recover dowry articles worth Rs. 1,70,000/,
2. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has only argued with respect to alternate price of dowry articles fixed by the Courts below @ Rs. 170,000/-, which as per contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not in accordance with the actual facts and circumstances of the case as according to him no dowry articles were given to the respondent at the time of marriage and the respondent has also failed to prove the financial status of her parents in order to prove her claim with regard to delivery of dowry articles mentioned in the plaint.
3. The list attached with the plaint reflects that most of the items are of daily use that are ordinarily given to a bride by her parents at the time of marriage. The Court below observed that prices of some items have been shown exaggerated, some of which may have been destroyed or lost their face value with the efflux of time and during subsistence of marriage and consequently either excluded such articles of the list or their value in the decree. It is the custom of our society that parents give dowry articles to their daughter according to their financial capacity and sometimes other family members also contribute to it. It cannot be assumed that the parent of the respondent have given no dowry articles to their daughter . Therefore, the Courts below were justified in decreeing the claim of the respondent qua recovery of dowry articles for an amount of Rs. 170,000/- by keeping in view the wear and tear factor and other attending circumstances.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any misreading, non-reading or illegality in the impugned judgment. The assessment and appraisal of evidence is the function of the Family Court, which is vested with exclusive jurisdiction in this regard. This Court while exercising Constitutiona l jurisdiction does not ordinarily reappraise the evidence produced before the Courts below to substitute findings of facts recorded by the said Courts, nor gives its opinion regarding quality or adequacy of the evidence unless any misreading, non-reading of record of any illegality is pointed out, which have not been established on the record, hence, there is no ground to set aside the said findings of fact.
5. For what has been discussed above, this petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.