Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ VS Respondent: ZUBAIDA BIBIHonorable Justice Nazir Ahmad SiddiquiPir Akhtar Hussain Bodla,Mian Fazal Rauf Joya
2003 M L D 1945
2003 M L D 1945
[Lahore]
Before Nazir Ahmad Siddiqui, J
MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ‑‑‑Petitioner
Versus
ZUBAIDA BIBI and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
Writ Petition No.7136 of 2002, decided on 12th November, 2002.
West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.5 & Sched‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑ Constitutional petition‑‑‑Suit for recovery of dowry articles or its price‑‑ Family Court and Appellate Court below, after critically assessing evidence on record had concurrently found that plaintiff was entitled to recover amount of certain articles of dowry‑‑‑Such being a question of fact determined concurrently by Courts below on a due appreciation of material available on record, same was immune from further scrutiny in Constitutional petition particularly when no jurisdictional defect had specifically been pointed out.
Pir Akhtar Hussain Bodla for Petitioner.
Mian Fazal Rauf Joya for Respondent No. 1.
ORDER
Mst. Zubaida Bibi, plaintiff/respondent No.1 instituted a suit for recovery of dowry articles or in the alternate its price Rs.46,000 against her husband Muhammad Mushtaq defendant/petitioner. This suit, after a hot contest was decreed by the learned Judge Family Court to the tune of Rs.10,000 vide his judgment and decree dated 2‑2‑2062 and appeal against the same preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the learned District Judge, Pakpattan Sharif vide his judgment and decree dated 23‑5‑2002.
2. This Constitutional petition calls in question the aforesaid judgments and decrees.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues the impugned decrees are an outcome of non‑reading/misreading on the evidence of the parties and there was no documentary evidence at all to assess the dowry articles even at Rs.10,000 i.e. the decretal amount.
4. On the other hard, learned counsel for respondent No.1 strongly supported the impugned judgments and decrees by submitting that the same had been passed strictly in accordance with law and facts.
5. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.
6. Respondent No.1 while appearing as P.W.1 has given the details of the dowry articles as well as the their value. Her statement has been duly supported by P.W.2 and P.W.3. Nazir Ahmad (D.W.2) appeared from the side of the petitioner who has also got recorded his statement as D. W.1. It is his case that respondent No. 1 has not brought any dowry but he failed to prove the same whereas the evidence of respondent No. 1 was critically assessed by the learned Courts below and concurrency held that she was entitled to certain articles of dowry valuing Rs.10,000.
This being a question of fact determined concurrently by the learned Courts below on a due appreciation of the material available on the record, is immune from further scrutiny in this Constitutional petition, particularly when no jurisdictional defect has been specifically pin pointed.
7. Resultantly, instant petition fails and the same is dismissed in limine.
H.B.T./M‑1698/L Petition dismissed.