M. JAFFAR vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others

' This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 22-4-2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Khanewal, whereby he reversed the judgment dated 30-9-2003 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Khanewal, and held that Mst. Shahnaz Bibi, respondent No.3, was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000 as substitute for articles of dowry and accepted the appeal accordingly.

2. The facts giving rise to the instant writ petition are that respondent No.3 Mst. Shahnaz Bibi contracted marriage with the petitioner Muhammad Jaffar on 14-3-2002. At the time of Rukhsati her parents gave her various articles of dowry including two tolas golden ornaments, furnitures, utensils, bedding etc., of valuaing Rs.60,000. The petitioner could not behave properly and she was expelled from the house. The petitioner was asked to return the articles of dowry, but he failed to do so. Therefore, Mst. Shahnaz Bibi respondent No.3 had filed a suit for recovery of articles of dowry valuing Rs.60,000 against the petitioner Muhammad Jaffar, which was dismissed by the learned Judge Family Court, Khanewal, vide his judgment dated 30-9-2003. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, respondent No.3 Mst. Shahnaz Bibi had filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Khanewal, who vide his judgment dated 22-4-2004 accepted the appeal holding that "Mst. Shahna7 Bibi is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000 as substitute for articles of dowry".

Hence this writ petition.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned First Appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the petitioner while the trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the respondent Mst. Shahnaz Bibi was unable to prove her case as her oral statement was set of contradictions; that no dowry articles were given to the respondent at the time of marriage and no such list was ever prepared or handed over to the petitioner at the Rukhsati and as such the learned First Appellate Court wrongly decreed the suit in favour of the respondent upto the extent of Rs.30,000 and that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge is based on surmises and conjectures.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment and submitted that certain articles of dowry were given to the respondent Mst. Shehnaz Bibi at the time of Rukhsati and in support of his contention she has relied upon the statement of P.W.1, Mst.

Shahnaz Bibi, respondent No.3. In her statement, Mst. Shahnaz Bibi could mention the articles as a show case, a bed, iron boxes, beddings, clothes, dinner set and various untensils but she could not mention any ornaments.

5. Arguments heard and record perused.

6. It is an admitted fact that Rukhsti had taken place. It will not be out of place to mention here that in our society if Rukhsati takes place, then naturally articles of dowry are shifted along with bride. So I am of the view that articles of dowry were given to the respondent Mst. Shehnaz Bibi respondent No.3 at the time of Rukhsati. But the question is as to what should be the value of articles of dowry.

A reference is made to the statement of Mst. Shahnaz Bibi P.W.1, in which she could mention the articles as a show case, a bed, iron boxes, bedding, clothes, dinner set and various utensils but could not mention any ornaments. So I am also of the view that the learned Additional District Judge has rightly fixed Rs.30,000 as the value of the articles of dowry on the basis of the statement of Mst. Shahnaz Bibi P.W.1/respondent and there is no illegality in the impugned judgment.

7. In the circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed.