' Brief facts of this writ petition are that respondent No,1, Mst. Gulshan Ara filed a suit against her husband (writ petitioner) for recovery of her dower i,e, 7 Tolas of gold ornaments, alleging therein that previously she had filed a suit for the same relief during the proceedings whereof matter was compromised in the manner that the petitioner had given an undertaking in the Court that he would pay her aforesaid dower in view of which she had withdrawn that suit and started living with him.
2. It was alleged that after some period the petitioner had not only deserted her but had also resiled from his undertaking given before the Court and declined to pay her dower.
3. The suit was contested by the petitioner. After framing necessary issues and recording evidence, the learned Family Court (respondent No,3) decreed the suit vide judgment dated 31-5-2000 (Annexure F). Petitioner' s,appeal against that decree was also dismissed by Additional District Judge, (respondent No,2) vide judgment dated 31-1-2002 (Annexure G).
4. In this Constitutional petition both the aforesaid judgments and decrees called in question.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner had argued that both the aforesaid judgments are against law and facts for the following reasons:--
(i) From the evidence produced by respondent No,1, her claim for recovery of dower was not established; and
(ii) Evidence was not correctly appraised and the impugned judgments suffer from non-reading and misreading of evidence.
6. The petition is contested by learned counsel for respondent No,1, Arguments heard; petition and its annexures perused.
7. Concurrent findings by the Family Court and the Appellate Court cannot be successfully assailed in writ jurisdiction, unless the Courts had exceeded jurisdiction, acted without jurisdiction or findings were based on no evidence.
Constitutional petition also does not lie to challenge an order on the ground that evidence in the case was not correctly appreciated because findings of facts recorded by Courts of competent jurisdiction cannot be disturbed simply on the ground that another view could be possible on the same evidence.
8. High. Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction cannot sit as a Court of appeal and cannot suhstitute findings of facts recorded by the Courts below as such matter should be decided by the Courts invested with jurisdiction to decide them.
9. A perusal of the impugned judgments reveal that plausible reasons have been given therein in support of the conclusions arrived at.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner had failed to draw my attention to any portion of evidence which was allegedly overlooked or was misread by any of the Courts below.
11. Neither there appears to be any misreading of evidence nor any material piece of evidence appears to have been overlooked by the Courts below.
' For the foregoing reasons, writ petition is without any merit, it is accordingly dismissed.