MUHAMMAD RIAZ Versus JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, SARGODHA and, another

ORDER

Through this Constitutional petition, Muhammad Riaz, petitioner, impugns the judgment and decree, dated 15-9-2003, passed by a learned Judge. Family Court. Sargodha to the extent the suit filed by Mst. Ghulam Ruqayya respondent No.2 for recovery of dowry articles or in lieu thereof a sum of Rs.22,000, as price of the dowry articles, has been decreed.

2. Briefly put, respondent No.2 had file two suits, one for dissolution of her marriage with the petitioner and the other for recovery of dowry articles. The petitioner filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. In all the three suits, consolidated issues were framed. The learned Judge, Family Court Sargodha, disposed of all the three suits by a single judgment dated 15-9-2003. Both the suits filed by respondent No.2 one for dissolution of marriage and the other for recovery of dowry articles, were decreed, whereas the suit filed by the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed. The instant writ petition is, however, confined to the judgment and decree granted in favour of respondent No.2 for recovery of dowry articles.

3. The only contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Judge, Family Court, has not discussed the evidence produced by the parties qua Issue No.3 which pertained to the suit for recovery of dowry articles.

4. The petitioner was married to respondent No.2 on 23-10-2002. Out of the wedlock, a daughter named Mehnaz was born. Marital relations between the parties were, however, short-lived, consequently they separated and the marriage came to an end. In support of her claim for recovery of dowry articles, plaintiff-respondent No.2 appeared as P.W.1. She deposed that at the time of marriage, her parents gave her dowry articles worth about Rs.22/23 thousand, details of which were given in the list which was tendered in evidence as Exh.P/1. The petitioner, while appearing as P.W.1 in the examination-in-chief deposed hat the dowry articles worth about Rs.1,00,000 were purchased by him and were sent to the house of respondent No.2 and that at the time of her marriage, plaintiff had brought small quantity of dowry articles, whereas the remaining articles were retained by her parents, to be given to their other daughter, namely, Mst. Surraya, at the time of her marriage. During cross-examination, when questioned, whether he was in possession of receipts showing purchase of dowry articles by him the petitioner candidly conceded that he was not in possession of any such receipt. The petitioner produced his real brother, namely Muhammad Mukhtar as D.W.2, whose statement is almost the same as that of the petitioner. In the written statement filed by the petitioner, there is an admission that the plaintiff-respondent had brought certain articles of dowry at the time of her marriage, though his case is that the dowry was arranged by him. Admittedly, the plaintiff-respondent had been given some articles of dowry at the time of marriage. After the said admission, onus was on the petitioner to have established that the dowry articles were purchased by him. He has, however, failed to render any proof in support of his claim. In this view of the matter, the learned Judge Family Court, was justified in deciding Issue No.3 in favour of plaintiff-respondent No.2. The amount of Rs.22,000 awarded in lieu of dowry articles as price thereof is also reasonable. No error of approach or jurisdictional defect in the impugned judgment and decree has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. For the foregoing reasons, I find no substance in this petition, which is dismissed in limine.

H.B.T./M-738/L Petition dismissed.