--Art. 199--Family matter--Constitutional jurisdiciton--Question of facts and findings--No patent illegality---No patent illegality has been pointed out by poetitioner's counsel in the impugned judgments of Courts below--

 PLJ 2008 Lahore 104 

Constitution of Pakistan, 1973—

 

----Art. 199--Family matter--Constitutional jurisdiciton--Question of facts and findings--No patent illegality--High Court cannot interfere in concurrent findings of facts arrived at by Courts below after proper appraisal of evidence on record in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiciton in the absence of any illegality or any other error of jurisdiction committed by Courts below--Where the question of facts which has been statedly discussed and appraised, High Court should decline to interfere with findings of family Court--No patent illegality has been pointed out by poetitioner's counsel in the impugned judgments of Courts below--Petition dismissed.     [P. 106] B

Jurisdiction--

----Concurrent findings of facts--High Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own findings in place of concurrent findings of facts of Courts below.      [P. 106] A

2000 YLR 2637; 2001 CLC 863 and 2002 CLC 113 rel.

Mr. Muhammad Rehan, Advocate for Petitioner.

Date of hearing: 30.7.2007.

 PLJ 2008 Lahore 104
Present: Iqbal Hameed-ur-Rehman, J.
ZULFIQAR ALI--Petitioner
veruss
JUDGE FAMILY COURT--Respondent
W.P. No. 7251 of 2007, decided on 30.7.2007.

Order

Through the instant petition the petitioner seeks setting aside the impugned judgments and decrees dated 26.2.2007 and 3.7.2007 passed by the learned Judge Family Court and the learned Addl. District Judge, Sheikhupra, respectively.

2. Briefs facts of the case are that Respondent No. 3 was married with the petitioner on 26.4.2003 in consideration of Rs. 500/- as dower, a plot measuring 03-Marlas worth of Rs. 75,000/- and golden ornaments weighing two tolas and no issue was born out of the said wedlock and it was only after 3/4 months  of the marriage that the relations between the spouses became strained and then Respondent No. 3 was expelled from the house and later on divorced by the petitioner. Respondent

No. 3 filed a suit for recovery of dowery articles and dower amount against the petitioner, which was initially decreed vide judgment and decreed dated 31.7.2006. On appeal the same was remanded to the learned Judge Family Court, Sheikhupura, only to the extent of determining the territorial jurisdiction of the case in hand. After remand Issue No. 3-A was framed:

"Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter in hand because of the residence of the plaintiff at District Nankana Sahib? OPD

The issue of jurisdiction was decided in favour of Respondent No. 3 while the earlier findings of the learned Judge Family Court vide its judgment and decree dated 31.7.2006 were maintained on other issues. The suit was decreed in favour of Respondent No. 3 vide judgment and decree dated 26.11.2006. The petitioner preferred an appeal in the Court of learned District Judge, Sheikhupura, which was dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 3.7.2007. Both the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below have been assailed through the instant writ petition.

3.  The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Respondent No. 3 has not been able to substantiate her claim for the recovery of dowery articles as well as dower amount through substantial evidence regarding the same before the learned Judge Family Court.

4.  Arguments heard, record perused.

5.  The learned Addl. District Judge held that evidence of both the parties shows that the findings of the learned Judge Family Court, does not suffer from any illegality or any sort of irregularity and the findings of the learned Trial Court does  not deserve any interference as the dowry articles are always the ownership of the lady and the learned Trial Court has accepted the matter regarding the depreciation of value of the articles and maintained the findings of the learned trial Court. In Issue No. 2 it was further held that according to Nikah Nama Ex.P. 3 which is a registered document established the relationship between the parties and according to Column No. 13 of the Nikah Nama Ex. P. 2 the dower was fixed as Rs. 500/- and according to Column No. 14 it was prompt. According to Column No. 15 the same was paid by the appellant. However, under Column No. 16 the plot of measuring 03-Marlas of worth Rs. 75,000/- and golden ornaments weighing two tolas have also been mentioned by the petitioner to be the ownership of Respondent No. 3. It was also held that Column No. 17 of the Nikah Nama reveals that Rs. 1000/- maintenance allowance was also fixed by the petitioner for Respondent No. 3. The evidence of both the parties reveals that the petitioner himself pronounced the divorce in favour of Respondent No. 3 and the plot and golden ornaments mentioned in Column No. 16 have not been delivered to the respondent which has been proved by Respondent No. 3. The learned Judge Family Court while deciding Issue No. 1 has held that Respondent No. 3 has been able to produce the oral as well as documentary evidence that has not been refuted by the petitioner through the cross-examination of the witnesses of Respondent No. 3 except Respondent No. 3/plaintiff, therefore, the claim of the plaintiff/Respondent No. 3 was accepted as true. The perusal of Ex.P. 1 it reveals that these are the articles which are ordinarily given to a bride at the time of her marriage. Moreover, Column No. 16 of the Nikha Nama depicts that 03-Marlas plot valuing Rs. 75000/- was also written as consideration for the marriage as dower alongwith 2-tolas golden ornaments while the prompt dower of Rs. 500- was paid at the time of marriage. The learned Appellate Court after proper appreciation of the evidence on record upheld the findings of the learned Judge Family Court. Both the Courts below have given concurrent findings, which are based upon substantial evidence and the petitioner has not been able to controvert the same during the trial, as such, the petitioner has failed to show any illegality or irregularity committed by the Courts below in the impugned judgments so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its extra-ordinary constitution jurisdiction. Reliance in this context can be placed to the cases of Muhammad Nawaz vs. Mst. Doulan and 2 others (2000 YLR 2637) and Lahore Development Authority through Director General vs. Shakil Ahamd Naser and 2 others (2001 CLC 863) that this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own findings in place of concurrent findings of facts of the Courts below. Moreover, this Court cannot interfere in the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the Courts below after proper appraisal of evidence on record in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction in the absence of any illegality or any other error of jurisdiction committed by the Courts below as per law laid down in the case of Mst. Khair-un-Nisa vs. Abdul Majeed and others (1989 MLD 1945). Where the question of facts which has been statedly discussed and apprised, High Court should decline to interfere with the findings of the Family Court. Reliance in this context can be placed to the case of Adnan Aziz vs. Civil/Family Judge, East Karachi (2002 CLC 113). No patent illegality has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the impugned judgments of both the Courts below.

5.  For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any force in this writ petition which is dismissed in limine.

(N.F.)      Petition dismissed.