1. ' The petitioner Syed Mumtaz All through this Constitutional petition has sought the following relief:- - "It is, therefore, prayed that this Honourable Court will be pleased to pass order in the interest of justice as follows---
(a) To declare that the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below i,e, respondents Nos.2 and 3 is not sustainable in Family Suit No,1008 of 1998 both on facts as well as in law and liable to be set aside.
(b) That the impugned judgment and decree be set aside dismissing the Family Suit No,1008 of 1998 of the respondent No,1 awarding cost to the petitioner.
(c) Granting any further better relief to the petitioner which this Honourable Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case."
2. ' The brief facts as disclosed in the petition are that the petitioner and respondent No,1 Mst. Zaibun Nisa are real cousins and they are residing in the same building. The petitioner had married to respondent No,1 on 10th day of May, 1985. The dower amount of respondent No,1 was fixed at Rs,32.50. The Rukhsati took place and the spouses lived together as husband and wife. After sometime the dispute arose between the parties over the property. Both parties filed suits against each other which are still pending in various Courts.
3. ' The respondent No,1 under the instigation of her mother and brother filed two Family Suits bearing No,1007 of 1998 for Khula' and Family Suit No,1008 of 1998 for recovery of dowry articles amounting to Rs,5,00,000 in the Family Court.
4. ' The petitioner filed his written statement wherein he admitted relationship of respondent No,1 but denied the factum of receiving dowry articles. He asserted that respondent No,1 had left his house, at the instance of her mother and brother and at the time of leaving his house, she took her ornaments, articles and other valuable belonging to her.
5. ' The learned trial Court decreed both the suits filed by respondent No, 1 . In Suit No,1007 of 1998 respondent No,1 was granted Khula' whereas Suit No,1008 of 1998 was decreed with the directions to the petitioner to return gold ornaments belonging to respondent No,1 or pay its value at Rs,89,046 to her.
6. ' The petitioner being aggrieved by this judgment filed an appeal in the Court of learned District Judge, Karachi, East, which was transferred to V-Additional District Judge, Karachi, East, who vide order, dated 14-3-2001 maintained the order of trial Court and dismissed the Family Appeal No,69 of 2000 filed by the petitioner.
7. ' The petitioner has challenged the two judgments of two Courts below through this Constitutional petition.
8. ' It is submitted that the judgment of two Courts below are based upon erroneous assumption of law and facts. The evidence adduced by the parties has not been appreciated in right directions to achieve the cause of justice. The respondent No,1 had filed the list of dowry articles which does not bear the signature of petitioner. It is fictitious and forged. It is argued that the parties are residing in same building and their houses were accessible to each other. The respondent No,1 forcibly removed the steel box, containing all valuable goods of respondent No,1. It is further pleaded that the documents produced by the respondent No,1 are misread and misappraisal. The reliance is placed upon the cases of Deutsche Dampschiffaharts Gesellschaft and another v. Central Insurance Co. Ltd., Karachi PLD 1975 Kar. 819, President of Pakistan v. Ms. Benazir Bhutto 1992 MLD 382 and Water and Power Development Authority v. Ghulam Shabir 1998 M LD 1592.
9. ' Mr. Muhammad Rafi learned counsel for respondent No,1 contends that this Constitutional petition is not maintainable against the judgment passed in family suits.
10. ' The factual aspects of the cases have already been considered and deeply assessed by the two Courts below. The learned counsel submits that the respondent No,1 had claimed the dowry articles amounting to Rs,5,00,000 given to her by her parents at the time of marriage but the Court has decreed her suit to the extent of 89,046 only. The full dowry amount may be ordered to be paid to the respondent No, 1 . The suit was decreed by the trial Court and the said judgment was maintained by the learned Appellate Court.
11. ' The perusal of record shows that the petitioner and respondent No,1 are cousins. They married each other but the cordial relations could not be maintained by the parties hence two suits, one for dissolution of marriage and another for recovery of dowry articles given to respondent No,1 by her parents were filed.
12. ' The suit for recovery of dowry amount of Rs,5,00,000 was filed by the respondent No,1 and the same was decreed by the trial Court to the extent of Rs,89,046. The list of dowry articles was submitted by the respondent No,1 alongwith her plaint.
13. ' The parties adduced their evidence. Respondent examined herself, Aftab Baig, Sajjad Hussain and Abdul Rehman.
14. ' All these witnesses supported the version of respondent No,1 and the plea that the list of dowry articles does not bear the signature of petitioner is not tenable as the receipt of dowry articles is not denied by the petitioner in his petition. The para. No,5 of the petition reads as under:-- "That the learned Courts below did not taker into consideration the comparative physical force of the people of the petitioner as compared with the respondent No,1 who successfully created row and physically removed the steel box including the personal belongings of the respondent No,1 from the middle common door existing between the aforesaid two apartments."
15. ' In the aforementioned para. The petitioner stated that the articles were forcibly removed by the supporters of respondent No, 1 . He has, however, given different versions in his written statement by stating therein that on instigation of her brother and mother she had left the house of petitioner alongwith all the ornaments, articles and the valuable goods.
16. ' The law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is altogether on distinguished facts and circumstances which is of no help to petitioner.
17. No legal plea has been advanced before me. The controverted factual aspect of case cannot be resolved in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction. The facts and evidence adduced by the parties have been discussed and examined in detail by the two Courts below. No misreading or misappreciation of evidence is seen on the record.
18. ' For these reasons, this Constitutional Petition No,203 of 2001 was dismissed by a short order, dated 22-10-2001. These are the reasons for the same. .