' The brief facts out of which the present revision petition arises are that the petitioner and respondent No,1 solemnized the marriage in accordance with the Injunctions of Islam. Respondent No,1 filed the suit for recovery of dower against the petitioner in the Court of Judge Family Court, Multan on 31-5-2000. The contents of the plaint reveal that the marriage of Respondent No .1/plaintiff with the petitioner/defendant was taken place with the consideration of dower, ornaments and landed property measuring 8-Kanals situated in Mauza Allah Daddi, Tehsil and District Multan and the petitioner/defendant in pursuance of Nikah executed an Iqrar Nama of Tamleeq regarding dower on 6-4-1999 in favour of respondent No, 1/plaintiff and it was entered in the Nikahnama on 9-4-1999. The contents of the plaint further reveal that after solemnization of marriage of respondent No, 1/plaintiff with the petitioner, she remained in his house as his wife and when she demanded to get it implemented in the Revenue Record property given to her in dower but he refused and subsequently turned her out of his house by beating her snatching away ornaments etc. The contents of the plaint further reveal that petitioner/ defendant was asked time and again to give ornaments to her but he has refused due to which the plaintiff-respondent No,1 filed suit for the recovery of dower. The petitioner/defencant filed written statement, controverted the allegations levelled in the plaint. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Judge Family Court, framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether the 8-Kanal landed property was fixed as dower? OPP
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to grant of decree for declaration as played for? OPP
(3) Relief.
' The Judge Family Court decreed the suit to the extent of the 8-Kanal landed property. The petitioner being aggrieved filed appeal before the Additional District Judge, Multan, who dismissed the same vide judgment and decree dated 7-10-2002, A hence the present revision petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the Judge Family Court has no jurisdiction to take the cognizance of the matter in view of section 5 of the Family Courts Act, 1964 read with Schedule at the time of filing the suit by the plaintiff/respondent No,1, the Family Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit qua the recovery of dower. The Judge Family Court was granted powers to entertain suit for recovery of dower after addition of word "dower" after amendment in the Family Courts Act, 1964 by the competent body on 1-10-2002 therefore, both the Courts below have no jurisdiction to take the cognizance of the matter. He further submits that respondent No,1 mala fide inserted 8-Kanal land in Nikahnama which is evident that the same was written subsequently. He further submits that both the Courts below have decided the case against the petitioner by misreading and non-reading of the record.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the petitioner and perused the record.
4. It is admitted fact that both the Courts below have given concurrent findings of facts against the petitioner. It is settled proposition of law that writ petition is not maintainable against the concurrent findings on facts of the Courts below as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- ' Khuda Bukhsh v. Muhammad Sharif and another 1974 SCM R 279; Muhammad Sharif v.
Muhammad Afzal Sohail PLD 1981 SC 246 and Abdul Rehman Bajwa v. Sultan and 9 others PLD 1981 SC 522.
' It is also settled principle of law that this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own findings in place of the findings of the tribunals below as the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court and the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- ' M. Musaddaq's case PLD 1973 Lahore 600 and Syed Azmat Ali v. The Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and others PLD 1964 SC 260.
' It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has not taken a ground in the memorandum of appeal that the Judge Family Court has no jurisdiction to take the cognizance of the matter and also did not take the said ground in the memorandum of this petition, therefore, the learned counsel of the petitioner is estopped to raise the fresh ground at the time of hearing the constitutional petition as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- ' Ashfaq-ur-Rehman v. Ch. Muhammad Afzal PLD 1971 SC 766 and John E. Brownelee v. Vivan Macmillan AIR 1940 PC 219.
' Even otherwise the points raised by the learned counsel of the petitioner have no force in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Liaqat Ali's case 1997 SCM R 1122. It is also settled principle of law that the Constitutional jurisdiction is a discretionary in character. Keeping in view the special features of this case, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- ' Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali's case PLD 1973 SC 236 and Rana Muhammad Arshad's case 1998 SCM R 1462.
' It is pertinent to mention here that respondent filed suit for recovery of dower before the Judge Family Court on 4-11-1999 which was decreed by the Judge Family Court on 31-5-2000. The petitioner filed appeal before the Additional District Judge on 21-7-2000 which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 7-10-2002 Family Courts (Amendment) Ordinance, 2002 came into force on 1-10-2002 wherein the word 'dowry' is added in amendment of section 14 of West Pakistan Act XXXV of 1964. In case the aforesaid facts are put in juxtaposition then it is crystal clear that the respondents had filed a suit before the Judge Family Court on 4-11-1999 under the provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1964 the word 'dowry' was included in the Schedule on 26-4-1997 which was added by the Family Courts (Amendment) Act VII of 1997. In this view of the atter, the objection raised by the learned counsel of the petitioner qua the jurisdiction of the Family Court has no force on the well known principle of past and closed transactions as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Miani Sahib case PLD 1973 SC 17. Even otherwise the Judge Family Court has jurisdiction to take the cognizance of the matter in view of the addition of the word 'dowry' in the Schedule as mentioned above.
' In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition has no merits and the same is dismissed.