--Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance and dowry articles--Decreed--Appeals--modification in judgment--Maintenance allowance was reduce while value of dowry articles was enhanced-

 PLJ 2023 Lahore (Note) 58
[Multan Bench, Multan]
Present: Sohail Nasir, J.
Mst. SAMAR NASEEM & another--Petitioners
versus
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, VEHARI and 2 others--Respondents
W.P. No. 1995 & 933 of 2016, heard on 4.11.2021.

Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 (VIII of 1961)--

----Ss. 9 & 10--Limitation of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance and dowry articles--Decreed--Appeals--modification in judgment--Maintenance allowance was reduce while value of dowry articles was enhanced--Obligations of petitioner--Petitioner alleged a considerable amount in dowry articles, she was under obligations to prove financial status of her, her parents or any of her family members--Neither in her examination in chief nor in statement of her witnesses this fact was established but what Pw-2 stated in cross-examination was that father of petitioner was a labourer having a donkey-cart--In his examination in chief by deviating from written statement contesting respondent maintained that few dowry articles were given by her parents to petitioner--Trial Court made a careful analysis and rightly concluded value of dowry articles whereas appellate Court did not assign any good reason for enhancement of value thereof--Order accordingly.        [Para 14, 15 & 16] A, B & C

M/s. Nadeem Ahmad Tarrar and Mansoor Ahmad Sheikh Advocates for Petitioners.

Rana A.D. Kamran Advocate for Respondent No. 3.

Date of hearing: 4.11.2021.

Judgment

A suit for recovery of maintenance etc. was filed by Mst. Samar Naseem (petitioner) against Sajjad Hussain/Respondent No. 3 (contesting respondent) and 2 others where she maintained that she and contesting respondent entered into marriage on 26.03.2010; in the beginning the behavior of contesting respondent was normal which later on was changed who used to torture her besides abusing; she was deserted by contesting respondent, however reconciliation was made and she again resided with her husband and this time an Iqrarnama dated 03.06.2011 was executed; again she was deserted by contesting respondent and she filed a suit for maintenance but due to compromise she had withdrawn the same; third time she again reconciled and started to reside with contesting respondent and she also resigned from her position of Lady Health Visitor; contesting respondent then levelled allegations of bad character against petitioner and started torturing; six months earlier to filing of suit she was deserted by contesting respondent and since then maintenance was not paid to her; according to petitioner at the time of marriage dowry articles valuing Rs. 7,11,020/- (seven lacs eleven thousand and twenty) was given to her by her parents, which was in possession of contesting respondent. She asked for the decree for maintenance at the rate of
Rs. 5000/-per month for past and future as well as dowry articles.

2. In written statement contesting respondent maintained that he did not execute any Iqrarnama, which was result of fraud; petitioner deliberately avoided to reside with him; his income was only Rs. 3000/4000/- and he was also having liability of aged parents, sisters and brothers. He asked for dismissal of suit.

3. From the pleadings of parties following issues were framed:-

1.       Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover maintenance allowance, if so, at what rate and from what period? OPP

2.       Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover dowry articles valuing of Rs. 7,11,020/-? OPP

3.       Relief.

4. In evidence petitioner got her statement recorded as Pw-1 and she also produced Muhammad Miraj Khalid (Pw-2) and Nisar Ahmad (Pw-3),

5. On the other hand contesting respondent made the statement as Dw-1 and produced Muhammad Parvez as Dw-2.

6. Vide judgment and decree dated 14.04.2015 passed by the learned Judge Family Court Vehari the suit was decreed in the manner that contesting respondent was declared entitled for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5000/-(five thousand) per month as Well as dowry articles and in alternate its price Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lac).

7. Both sides filed independent appeals, which were decided through consolidated judgment and decree dated 19.12.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Vehari. The decision of learned trial Court was modified by reducing the maintenance from Rs. 5000/-to Rs. 3000/-for the period of Iddat only whereas the value of dowry articles was enhanced from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 3,50,000/-.

8. Petitioner through writ petition (1995 of 2016) has assailed the decisions of both the Courts below on the ground that the value of dowry articles was wrongly assessed whereas contesting respondent filed writ petition (933 of 2016) and according to his counsel it is to the extent of decree of dowry articles in favour of petitioner. Both these writ petitions therefore are being decided by way of this single judgment.

9. Learned counsel for petitioner maintains that at the time of marriage the dowry articles was given by her parents which she proved in evidence, therefore, the learned trial Court as well learned appellate Court wrongly assessed its value. She further maintained that value which she had mentioned in her plaint, that is the correct position.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for contesting respondent contends that petitioner was not given any dowry articles so question of its return to her does not arise.

11. HEARD

12. Both the parties are having contest only on the dowry articles. In her plaint, petitioner in paragraph No. 5 stated about the dowry articles of Rs. 7,11,020/-(seven lac eleven thousand and twenty) which was given by her parents at the time of marriage on 26.03.2010. In written statement there was evasive denial by contesting respondent in this regard.

13. It is settled proposition by now that the parents in our society, however, weak in financial position is, do prefer to give dowry articles to their daughters so as to avoid social and domestic threats, therefore, simple denial of contesting respondent in this regard has no value.

14. As petitioner alleged a considerable amount in the dowry articles, therefore, she was under obligations to prove the financial status of her, her parents or any of her family members. Neither in her examination in chief nor in the statement of her witnesses this fact was established but what Muhammad Miraj Khalid (Pw-2) stated in cross-examination was that father of petitioner was a labourer having a donkey-cart. It is also an important fact that it was the second marriage of petitioner with contesting respondent. She was earlier married 10 years ago with one Muhammad Sarwar where she resided about 3/4 years and then she was divorced. She admitted that even against Muhammad Sarwar she had taken back her dowry articles, which were also of Rs. 6,00,000/-.

15. It is important to mention here that in his examination in chief by deviating from written statement contesting respondent maintained that few dowry articles were given by her parents to petitioner.

16. Considering the position of both sides, the; learned trial Court made a careful analysis and rightly concluded the value of dowry articles of Rs. 1,00,000/-(one lac) whereas the learned appellate Court did not assign any good reason for the enhancement of value thereof.

17. Concluding the discussion made above the writ petition No. 1995 of 2016 filed by petitioner is dismissed, whereas writ petition No. 933 of 2016 filed by contesting respondent is partly allowed while reversing the finding of learned appellate Court enhancing the value of dowry articles from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 3,50,000/- and upholding the findings of learned trial Court.

(Y.A.)  Order accordingly