MUZAMIL AKHT AR SHABIR, J. --- Through this Constitutional petition, the petitioner has called in question the judgments and decrees dated 04.03.2019 and 25.04.2018 passed by Courts below , to the extent of alternate price of dowry articles Rs. 1,10,000/- and delivery expenses of the minors Rs. 30,000/-.
2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the findings of maintenance allowance of the plaintif f/respondent No. 1 i.e., Rs. 3000/- per month for "Iddat" period are not under challenge through this petition, however , argues that the decree to the extent of alternate price of dowry articles i.e., Rs. 1,10,000/- is groundless as dowry articles described in the list were not actually given to her at the time of marriage and only few articles were given, which have been stated in his written statement and the petitioner is ready to return the same. It is observed that the articles claimed by the respondent are such articles that are ordinarily given to a bride by her family members at the time of marriage. It is apparent from the record that both the parties are in sound financial condition and it is beyond the understanding that the parents of the respondent cannot afford to provide dowry articles worth Rs. 2,80,000/- as claimed by the respondent through her suit. Even otherwise, it is the custom of our society that parents give dowry articles according to their financial position and other family members also sometimes contribute to it The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 26.06.2013 and it remained intact for quite a considerable time of about 5 years. During the subsistence of marria ge perishable items might have been consumed, which have already been excluded. The Courts below while considering the factor of wear and tear and period of existence of marriage, held entitled the respondent to recovery Rs. 1,10,000/- as, alternate price of dowry articles. No exception can be taken to the same.
3. The other argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that no delivery expenses were borne by the parents of the respondent. It is noticed that this argument does not find support from the record as from the copy of medical report Mark-A it is very much clear that delivery of the 2nd child was conducted at hospital. The respondent in her plaint has stated that delivery of second child was conducted through caesarian operation. DW-1 also acknowledged that the second child was born in the house of the respondent parents. The Courts below while relying upon all the relevant factors, have justifiably decreed the claim of the respondent to this extent. No exception can be taken to the same.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any misreading, non-reading or illegality in the impugned judgments. 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 Constitutional jurisdiction does not ordinarily reappraise the evidence produced before the Courts below to substitute findings of facts recorded by the said Courts, nor ordinarily gives its opinion regarding quality or adequacy of the evidence unless any misreading, non-reading of record or any illegality is pointed out, which have not been establis hed 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.