PLJ 2018 Peshawar 104

Present: Lal Jan Khattak, J.

Mst. RAHAT YASMEEN--Petitioner

versus

ALAM KHAN and 2 others--Respondents

W.P. No. 3467-P of 2015, decided on 28.11.2016.

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

----Ss. 8, 9 & 10--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--Suit for dissolution of marriage, dowry articles & maintenance filed by wife, partially decreed by Family Court--Dismissal of Appeal by District Judge--Concurrent findings of fact--Challenge to--Maintainability--Held that wife in support of her case appeared as witness before family Court but could not produce any worthy reliable and confidence aspiring evidence, which could support her claim relating to dowry articles--Wife produced a list showing dowry articles but said list cannot be relied upon for safe administration of justice for its being only a typed document having been prepared on day when suit was instituted--Wife neither produced any receipt qua items mentioned in list as her dowry nor any person appeared in her support to corroborate her version, list declared to be of no legal worth--Further held that wife had also failed in proving that certain amount was given by her to respondent--Wife could not produce any evidence to show that when and where when she had given amount to respondent--Petition dismissed. [P. 105] A & B

Mr. Amanullah, Advocate for Petitioner.

Respondent has already been ex-parte.

Date of hearing: 28.11.2016.

Judgment

This writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 07.07.2015 of the learned Additional District Judge-VII, Peshawar, whereby the petitioner’s appeal, against the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2014 of the learned Judge, Family Court-III, Peshawar, has been dismissed.

2.  Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a family suit against the Respondent No. 1 for recovery of dower, maintenance, dowry articles, money and dissolution of marriage. The suit was contested by the respondent by filing his written statement, wherein, he refuted the petitioner’s claim. On the case issue, parties adduced their respective evidence, whereafter the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 17.03.2014 only decreed the prayer for dissolution of marriage on the basis of khula in lieu of the unpaid dower coupled with maintenance to the petitioner from dissolution of marriage till the period of Iddat. Rests of the petitioner’s claims were dismissed who then impugned the partial decree in appeal which was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court, hence, the instant writ petition.

3.  Learned counsel for the petitioner only argued the petitioner’s case qua dismissal of her claim as to dowry articles and the amount of Rs.50,000/-. It is pertinent to mention that the respondent has been placed ex-parte by this Court vide order dated 09.09.2016.

4.  Arguments heard and record gone through.

5.  Perusal of the record would show that petitioner in support of her case appeared before the learned Family Court as PW-2 but she could not produce any worth reliable and confidence inspiring evidence which could support her claim relating to the dowry articles. No doubt, she produced a list Ex.PW 2/2 showing the articles mentioned therein as her dowry but said list cannot be relied upon for safe administration of justice for its being only a simple typed document having been prepared on the day when the suit was instituted. Petitioner neither produced any receipt qua the items mentioned in the list as her dowry nor any person appeared in her support to corroborate her version, therefore, the list is of no legal worth.

6.  So far as the issue relating to the amount of Rs.50,000/- is concerned, suffice it to say that the petitioner has also failed in proving that the said amount was given by her to the respondent. She could not produce any evidence to show that when and where she had given the ibid amount to the respondent. On record of the case, there is no convincing material from which this Court could come to a conclusion

that the petitioner had given the amount of Rs.50,000/- to the Respondent No. 1. Mere an unsubstantiated statement would not be enough to hold the petitioner entitled to her ibid claim unless same is proved strictly in accordance with law which is not the case in hand.

7.  Both the Courts below have correctly appreciated and scrutinized the case evidence and rightly dismissed the petitioner’s ibid claims. While arriving at the concurrent findings the Courts below, have not committed any such illegality which could attract the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.

8.  For what has been discussed above, the instant writ petition, being bereft of any merit, is hereby dismissed.

(Z.I.S.)            Petition dismissed

For more, you can consult omara.khan789@gmail.com or call +923123450006