MANZOOR AHMAD Versus KANEEZ BEGUM
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a husband against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed his civil revision regarding a decree for the recovery of dowry articles. The respondent wife had successfully obtained a decree for the return of dowry articles or their monetary value, a decision affirmed by the District Judge in appeal and subsequently upheld by the High Court in revision. The petitioner sought to challenge these concurrent findings, arguing that the courts below misunderstood the legal position regarding the return of dowry and improperly relied on the testimony of his father, whom he alleged was an interested witness due to familial animosity. The Supreme Court, upon review, determined that the arguments raised by the petitioner pertained solely to concurrent findings of fact. Finding no legal infirmity or justification for interference with the lower courts' decisions, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, thereby affirming the finality of the concurrent factual determinations made by the courts below.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a family matter regarding the recovery of dowry articles?
- Is the testimony of a father considered inherently unreliable in a suit for dowry recovery due to prior marital discord between the parents?
- Does a misunderstanding of the factual position regarding the return of dowry articles constitute a valid ground for Supreme Court interference in a civil revision?
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑ ‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the husband in a family matter against order dated 21‑3‑1988 of the Lahore High Court; whereby the petitioner's Civil Revision was dismissed.
2. The respondent /plaintiff filed suit for recovery of dowry articles or their equivalent in money value, which was decreed. The petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge, which was dismissed. His revision also met the same fate. Therefore, leave to appeal has now been sought.
3. The learned counsel has tried to show firstly, that the decree has been passed against the petitioner on account of misunderstanding about the correct position regarding return of the dowry articles and secondly, that the statement of the father of the petitioner has been utilized against him, notwithstanding the fact that he (the father) was in the position of an interested witness against the petitioner; because the latter's mother having been divorced by the former, there was ill‑will between both.
4. We have heard the learned counsel at some length. Although he has put in considerable labour, yet the questions raised by him relate to the concurrent finding of fact against the petitioner. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity, legal or otherwise, justifying interference by this Court. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused and the petition is accordingly dismissed.
M.B.A./M‑463/S Petition dismissed.