' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN, Aqal Zaman, petitioner married Mst.Azad Bibi respondent in 1991 and a son namely Akhtar Zaman was born out of this wedlock. At the time of marriage the dower of respondent was fixed at Rs,60,000. Unfortunately, after the marriage, the relations between the couple became strained due to stated ill-treatment of the petitioner and the respondent left the house of the petitioner and started living in the house of her parents. The respondent instituted a suit before the Judge, Family Court, Takht Nusrati, District Karak, against her husband for the recovery of maintenance allowance for herself at the rate of Rs,1,000 per month and at the rate of Rs,800 per month for her minor child and for the recovery of Rs,60,000 as dower. The suit was resisted and the allegations of the respondent were denied. The necessary issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties were formulated and after recording the evidence of the parties, the learned trial Judge allowed the suit through his judgment and decree dated 23-11-2000, which was maintained in appeal through judgment dated 18-6-2001.
2. Feeling aggrieved, Aqal Zaman petitioner has filed instant Constitutional petition challenging the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below on a variety of grounds.
3. Mr. Amanullah Khan Khattak, Advocate appeared on behalf of the petitioner whereas Mr. Lal Jan Khattak, Advocate represented respondent No,
1. We have heard in detail the arguments of learned counsel for the parties in the light of the material on file.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner confined his arguments to the question of payment of dower and attempted to argue that the dower was paid by the father of the petitioner to the father of respondent No,1 at the time of Nikah according to the prevalent custom/Riwaj of the Illaqa and that the learned Courts below proceeded on wrong premises to hold otherwise. The learned counsel also submitted that an agreement deed was executed between the parties containing an arbitration clause but this deed was not taken into consideration by the Courts below and matter was not referred to arbitrators which has resulted in manifest injustice. Concluding the arguments, the learned counsel reiterated that sufficient material was brought on the file to demonstrate that the dower amount was paid at the time of marriage and nothing was outstanding against the petitioner but the Courts below dealt with the matter in a cursory manner without application of judicious mind, which has materially prejudiced the interest of the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No,1 on the contrary, supported the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below and maintained that no case for interference has been made out and writ petition merits outright dismissal.
6. There is no denial of the fact that the petitioner married respondent No,1 in 1991 in consideration of Rs,60,000 as dower amount. The stand of the petitioner is that dower was paid by his father to the father of respondent No,1 at the time of marriage, according to the Riwaj of the area and that nothing is outstanding against him and that the Courtsbelow proceeded on wrong premises and in utter disregard to the evidence on file to hold him responsible for payment of dower. The submission is without force. There is nothing on the file to indicate that the dower was paid at the time of marriage and the petitioner has discharged his liability. The mere assertion of the petitioner that dower amount stands paid and evidence produced by him in support of his stand, has not been properly appreciated, without a positive attempt on his part to substantiate the same is of no consequence. Jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution is completely discretionary in nature and may be declined in appropriate cases. While exercising Constitutional jurisdiction this Court has to see if the Tribunal or Court acted without jurisdiction or in violation of any relevant statute or law and High Court in such cases, cannot embark upon reappraisal of evidence and proceed as B if it was hearing an appeal from a subordinate Court. It is the job of the Appellate Court to appraise the evidence and same has been done in accordance with law. In the instant case, no irregularity or jurisdictional defect has been highlighted by the learned counsel, calling for interference of this Court. Abdur Rahim Bajwa v. Sultan and 9 others PLD 1981 SC 522. It needs no reiteration that findings of fact recorded by the Family Court are not challengeable before this Court in the exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction as observed in cases reported as Muhammad Yaseen v.
Mst. Razia Begum 1986 CLC 1996 and Muhammad. Aslam v. Kausar Parveen and another 1987 CLC 256.
7. The marriage under Islamic Law is a civil contract and not a sacrament. It is ordained by Almighty Allah in Holy Qur'an and it is for comfort, love and compassion. It is the bounden duty of a husband to keep his wife with love and affection, respect and provide her maintenance during subsistence of marriage. Islam has laid down the parameters for spouses to live within those bounds and if the parties transgress those parameters they should relieve each other i,e, they may break the matrimonial tie with kindness. It is not denied that dower is a debt and the husband is under obligation to pay the same on demand.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, we find that the judgments of the Courts below are supported by actual evidence on file and material on record has been appreciated in right direction. The writ petition fails which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.