SABIT ULLAH KHAN, J.- Mst. Nasreen, the petitioner, has filed the instant petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, calling into question the correctness and legality of the consolidated judgment and decree dated 06.03.2023, passed by the learned Additional District Judge / Izafi Zilla Qazi, Matta, District Swat, whereby the appeals filed by both parties against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2021 of the learned Judge Family Court, Matta, District Swat, partially decreeing the suit of the petitioner / plaintiff, were decided.
2. It transpires from the record that the petitioner filed a suit against the respondents seeking the following reliefs:
(i) dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty, hatred, etc.;
(ii) recovery of 20 tolas of gold as dower;
(iii) recovery of maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per month for the preceding fifteen (15) months and ther'eafter during the pendency of Nikah with respondent No.1;
(iv) recovery of three (03) tolas of gold as dowry articles;
(v) recovery of medical expenses amounting to Rs. 200,000/-; and
(vi) recovery oldoWry diticles as enumerated in the list appended with the plaint, valued at Rs.
1,008,000/,
3. The suit was resisted by the respondents / defendants through a written statement, wherein they raised various legal and factual objections, specifically denying the petitioner's claims. It was contended that the petitioner / plaintiff was a disobedient wife and, therefore, not entitled to maintenance. They further pleaded that the actual dower was 10 tolas of gold, not 20, and that the same had been handed over to the petitioner at the time of marriage / rukhsati.
4. In view of the divergent pleadings, the learned trial Court framed issues and made an attempt at pre-trial reconciliation, which proved unsuccessful. Consequently, both parties were directed to produce their respective evidence. Upon completion of the evidence, a post-trial reconciliation effort was also failed. After hearing arguments, the learned trial Court partially decreed the suit of the petitioner vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.2021, to the extent of: (i) dissolution of marriage on the basis of khula; (ii) recovery of maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month for the period of iddat; and (iii) recovery of dowry articles as per the list, excluding the three (03) tolas of gold while the remaining claims were dismissed. Being aggrieved, both the petitioner and respondent No.1 (husband) filed separate appeals before the learned appellate court, which were decided through a consolidated judgment dated 06.03.2023. The learned appellate court partially accepted the appeal of the petitioner to the extent of the quantum of dower, holding that it was 20 tolas of gold instead of 10, and reduced the value of dowry articles claimed by the petitioner from Rs. 1,008,000/- to Rs. 250,000/-, while maintaining the remaining findings. The appeal of respondent No.1 was dismissed. Consequently, respondent No.1 has filed the instant petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
6. The findings regarding the quantum of dower are divergent. Record reveals that petitioner / plaintiff produced a Nikahnama wherein the dower is clearly recorded as 20 tolas of gold. Her witnesses have also corroborated the same. Nothing has been brought on record to rebut this assertion. Conversely, the respondent No. 1 has produced another Nikahnama reflecting dower as 10 tolas of gold. However, a plain reading of the evidence establishes that petitioner has successfully proved that 20 tolas of gold was fixed as dower, which, although given at the time of marriage, was subsequently taken back from the petitioner. Therefore, the findings of the, learned appellate court on this point are well reasoned and do not warrant interference by this Court.
7. The learned courts below, after evaluating the evidence on record, rightly dismissed the prayer for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty, animosity and maltreatment, and instead granted dissolution on the basis of khula. The decision to treat the dower as badal-e-khula upon dissolution of marriage is found to be in consonance with the factual background of the case and supported by the evidence on record. This inference drawn from the statement of petitioner / plaintiff appears to be legally sound. Although this Court is vested with the powers to modify the mode of dissolution, such discretion is exercised only in exceptional circumstances involving non- reading, misreading, or gross misappreciation of the pleadings or evidence, none of those elements are evident in the present case to this extent. Accordingly, the dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula is upheld and does not warrant any interference.
8. With regard to the grant of dowry articles, the findings of the learned courts below are at variance. The learned trial Court held that petitioner / plaintiff was entitled to dowry articles as per the list, excluding gold ornaments valued at three tolas. Conversely, the learned appellate court discarded the evidence in this respect and restricted the relief only to the extent of furniture, based on a receipt worth Rs. 250,000/-. This approach reflects a clear misreading of the record, as another receipt pertaining to crockery was also exhibited during trial but was not considered by the appellate court. Furthermore, in view of the prevailing custom in this region, it is customary for the bride to be provided dowry articles by her parents, which ordinarily include all essential items required for domestic use. Therefore, restricting the relief to the cost of furniture alone while excluding other listed articles is neither justified nor supported by the evidence on record. It is also relevant to note that the respondent No.1, in his cross-examination, admitted the presence of dowry articles belonging to petitioner in the matrimonial' home, stating that the room was full of her belongings, and named certain furniture items. This admission lends further support to the claim of petitioner.
9. The primary question involved is whether in the absence of receipts or documentary proof disentitles a wife from recovery of dowry articles. In this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in case titled Shafique Sultan vs. Asma Firdous & others reported as 2017 SCMR 393 that: "Provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 were not stricto sensu applicable to family matters, as such, the argument of the husband in the present case regarding proof of receipts and the effects of non-production of authors of such receipts was misconceived. Suit for recovery of dowry articles had been rightly decreed."
It is also now settled by the Hon'ble Superior Courts that in the family litigation, particularly concerning dowery articles, Court must adopt a liberal and equitable standard of appreciation of evidence and claim ought not to be discarded merely due to absence of receipts, especially where list appears reasonable and oral testimony remains unshaken in cross examination.
10. Perusal of the trial Court's judgment reflects that the petitioner led oral evidence to prove delivery of dowry articles. The list was found to be reasonable and within the customary practice.
The appellate court, however, set aside the decree solely on the basis that no receipts were produced is legally flawed and contrary to the settled principles of law. It is manifest that the reasoning adopted by the appellate court is legally flawed and factually untenable. It is by now a trite proposition that the matters relating to dowry article, the court must take cognizance of sociocultural realities wherein the transfer of such articles is seldom evidenced by written documentation. The Hon'ble Superior Courts have time and again reiterated that such claims may lawfully be sustained through cogent and confidence-inspiring oral evidence. In the case of "Nasir Mehmood Vs. Additional District Juge, Islamabad West and 02 others" (2023 CLC 350), the Hon'ble Islamabad High Court has maintained the decree qua recovery of dowry articles in favor of the wife irrespective of the fact that receipts pertaining to its purchase were not produced by her.
In said case it was held that: "Dowry articles ordered to be returned by the Family Court is not to be interfered with by questioning the failure of the wife to produce receipts of purchase or a later objection of the husband to the dowery list."
Reliance may also be placed on the case titled "Mst. Sharaini Bibi and another Vs. Additional District Judge and 2 others" (2023 MLD 51, Lahore), it was held that: "In an arranged marriage and in line with customs which are deeply rooted and entrenched in the society, parents whether rich or poor always give dowry to their daughters at the time of marriage, so delivery of dowry articles can be presumed if Rukhsati takes place."
In the present case, besides other witnesses the petitioner/ wife herself has stepped into the witness-box as PW-1 and her overall evidence regarding the claim of dowry articles is convincing.
In the case of "Meharbban Hussain vs. Zahida Kousar" (2022 YLR 2454), the claim for dowry articles was decreed in favour of the wife solely on the strength of her own statement, when it was found to be trustworthy, with the observation that: "Sole statement of wife is sufficient to prove her claim of dowry articles and she is not required to prove the case in the terms of requirements of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, by producing a certain number of witnesses in support of her claim along with recording of her own statement."
In an identical matter i.e., case titled "Muhammad Sagheer Vs. Aneesha Shabbir and another"
(PLD 2022 SC AJ&K 26), it was held that less burden was on the shoulders of wife to establish the claim of dowry articles. Wisdom may also be derived from the cases titled "Ali Akbar Vs. Mst.
Samina and another" (2020 YLR 332) and "Sakhawat Hussain Vs. Mst. Rubina Shaheen and 02 others" (2020 CLC 803).
11. On overall reappraisal of the available evidence on record, this Court finds that the petitioner has successfully established her claim with regard to the dowry articles. Furthermore, the findings of the learned trial court, being based upon due appreciation of evidence and congruent with legal norms, could not be disturbed by the appellate court unless found to be perverse or against the insight of evidence. The appellate forum regrettably appears to have substituted its own assessm ent for that of the trial court without identifying any legal infirmity or misreading of evidence. Accordingly, the impugned. judgments and decrees of the learned courts below are modified to the extent that the petitioner shall be entitled to the recovery of dowry articles as prayed for in the plaint.
12. Although evidence is generally not reappraised in a writ petition, interference by this Court is justified where the appellate court has acted illegally or failed to apply its judicial mind, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. This position is reinforced by the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Mushtaq and others vs. Mst. Fatima and others (dated 31.01.2025 in CPLA 559-P of 2024 approved for reporting but has not yet published), which, while hearing a petition against this Court's judgment, affirmed with the herein below view that such intervention is warranted in similar circumstances: "About the authority of the High Court to overturn decisions made by the courts subordinate to it in family cases, it is essential to emphasize that when it becomes evident that a Family Court or First Appellate Court has reached a legal conclusion that stems from a clear misinterpretation of statutory provisions or has acted in ignorance or disregard of the law, or based its judgment on legally unsound reasoning, such erroneous conclusions are subject to correction through an order of certiorari as outlined in Article 199(1)(a)(ii) of the Constitution. In the present case, it has been thoroughly demonstrated in the preceding paragraphs that the courts subordinate to the High Court fundamentally misapplied the legal principles when examining the dower deed (kabinnama). This misapplication constituted a significant error in law, apparent on the face of the records. Such a misjudgment could not be overlooked or left unaddressed, as it seriously threatened justice being served. Consequently, the High Court's intervention was justified and necessary to rectify this legal oversight and prevent any potential miscarriage of justice. The High Court, therefore, acted appropriately in revisiting the matter and ensuring that the principles of law were correctly applied."
The remaining findings with regard to the medical expenses and the maintenance allowance are supported by the evidence and have been appropriately recorded by the fora below, which are maintained, being based on proper appreciation of evidence and settled legal principles.
13. In view of the foregoing discussion, the instant petition is partially allowed in the above terms.