--Tentative value of dowry article cannot be given by family Court--One of mode for determining value of dowry articles can be by appointment of local commission for physical verification-

 PLJ 2021 Lahore 616

Constitution of Pakistan, 1973--

----Art. 199--Constitutional petition--Suit for dissolution of marriage, recovery of maintenance allowance and dowry ariticles--Petitioner failed to tender in evidence best of dowry article as receipt of return--Tentative value of dowry article cannot be given by family Court--One of mode for determining value of dowry articles can be by appointment of local commission for physical verification--Petitioner claimed to have returned dowry articles to Respondent No. 2 and as such he could not impugn value thereof as it would tantamount to taking mutually destructive pleas--Since return of dowry articles was an issue between parties, local commission could not have been appointed by judge family Court--Judge family Court rightly passed decree for award I of amount of Rs. 450,000/- to which no exception can be taken--Order accordingly.                                                    

                                                                                 [Pp. 617 & 618] A

Mr. Shamshad Ahmad Bajwa Advocate for Petitioner.

Date of hearing: 8.8.2017.

 PLJ 2021 Lahore 616
Present: Shams Mehmood Mirza, J.
MUHAMMAD IMRAN--Petitioner
versus
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE etc.--Respondents
W.P. No. 58601 of 2017, decided on 8.8.2017.

Order

This writ petition seeks to challenge findings of fact recorded by the Judge Family Court and the lower appellate Court on 08.04.2017 and 06.07.2017, respectively,

2. Facts of the case in brief are that Respondent No. 2 instituted the suit against the petitioner seeking dissolution of marriage, recovery of maintenance allowance and dowry articles. The suit to the extent of dissolution of marriage was decreed on 23.09.2015 whereas issues were framed for resolution of the claim for maintenance and return of dowry articles. The Judge Family Court decreed the suit on 11.02.2016. The lower appellate Court, however, remanded the matter in appeal by framing an additional issue (Issue No. 3-A). Following tho trial, the Judge Family Court vide judgment and decree dated 08.04.2017 held Respondent No. 2 entitled to maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per month from August 2015 till the period of Iddat. The Judge Family Court also ordered for return of the dowry articles and in the alternate awarded a decree for Rs. 450,000/-.

3. Both the parties feeling aggrieved filed appeals before the lower appellate Court against the findings of the judge family Court. The lower appellate Court, however, dismissed both the appeals.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dowry articles have been returned to Respondent No. 2 and, therefore, there was no occasion for Judge Family Court to pass judgment and decree against the petitioner. As an alternate submission, it was contended that the Judge Family Court made a tentative assessment of the value of the dowry articles and allowed decree in the sum of Rs. 450,000/- after factoring in the depreciation which was not permissible.

5. This Court has carefully gone through the record as well as the evidence led by the parties. Both the Courts below came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to lead any credible evidence for proving Issue No. 3-A that the dowry articles had been received by Respondent No. 2 in the presence of Sohail Ahmad and Sarfraz Ahmad Cheema, the respectable of the vicinity. Sarfraz Ahmad Cheema was called as Court witness but he professed ignorance about the return of dowry articles. Similarly, Muhammad Sohail was not examined by the petitioner as he was abroad although the Judge Family Court was inclined to record his statement through skype. Likewise, the petitioner failed to tender in evidence the list of dowry articles allegedly received by Respondent No. 2 on 18.04.2015 as receipt of return. Keeping in view these pertinent facts which emerged during the course of evidence, the Courts below rightly passed judgment and decree in favour of Respondent No. 2.

6. Although Respondent No. 2 had claimed dowry articles worth Rs. 965,800/-, the Judge Family Court after applying judicial mind and taking into account the depreciation in the value of the dowry articles, passed decree for a sum of Rs. 450,000/- in lieu thereof. The reasoning of the Judge Family Court cannot be interfered with by this Court in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment reported as Mst. Samreen Bibi v. Judge Family Court and others PLD 2015 Lahore 504 to state that tentative value of dowry articles cannot be given by the Judge Family Court. This judgment does not in any way help the case of the petitioner. It was stated in the precedent case that one of the mode for determining the value of the dowry articles can be by appointment of local commission for physical verification. In the present case, the petitioner claimed to have returned the dowry articles to Respondent No. 2 and as such he could not impugn the

value thereof as it would tantamount to taking mutually destructive pleas. Since the return of the dowry articles was an issue between the parties, local commission could not have been appointed by the Judge Family Court. In the circumstances, the Judge Family Court rightly passed the decree for the award of the amount of Rs. 450,000/- to which no exception can be taken.

(Sic) Result, this writ petition being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed.

(R.A.)  Petition dismissed