i

/J l'
\
\

IN THE COURTOF SYEDSA]}AD ZAFAR,

ADDL. DISTRICTIUDGE, LAYYAH,
CAMP AT CHOUBARA.

Family appealNo.393/13ADI oI2A19

Date of Institution: 18.11'.2019
Date of Decision: 13.01,.2020

Mst. Zubeda Bibi versus Habib Ullah

APPEAL AGAINST THE TUDGMENT ANP

DECREEDATED 18.10.2019
TUDGMENT.

The appellant has directed this appeai against the judgment

and decree dated 18.10.2019passed by Mr. Muhammad Hammad Aslam

Cheema, learned Judge Family Court, Choubara whereby learned trial

court partially decreed the suit of the appellant/plainti ff for recovery of

dowry articles. The appellant hereinafter shall be called as plaintiff

whereas the respondent as defendant throughout the judgnrent.

2. Briefly the facts germinated. to bring the ingtant appeal are

that plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of dowry articles against the

defendant wherein it has been contented that marriage of plaintiff was

solemnized with the defendant about 8/9 years prior asl per "shariat-e-
)
Mohamm adi" and she started to perform her matrimonial obligations

towards defendang that on 05.06.2018,the plaintiJf obtaifled a decree for

clissolution of marriage through court of law; that marriage between the

parties was an exchange marriage; that at the time of marriage, plaintiff

was gifted dowry articles valuing Rs.L3,46,800/-as per the list Annex-A,

by her parents which are still lying in possession of defendant and

plaintiff is entitled to recover the same from the defendanU that the

rlefendant was asked time and again to return the dowry articles of

plaintiff but he refused; hence, the suit. Lastly, it was prayed that suit may

hodecreed
kindly
 which he
3. The defendant submitted written statement in

controverted the stance of plaintiff while taking certain preliminary

at the time of the

objection as to cause of action etc. and submitted that

claimed by her
marriage plaintiff was not honoured with dowry articles as

and gold
and she while leaving his house took with her the clothes

He lastly
orn;unent and her parents are not financially sound Person'

prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

4. out of divergent pleading of the parties, the learned trial

Court had framed the following issues:-

TSSUES
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover dowry articles valuing Rs.

LJ,46,BA0f- accordingto list Anx-A annexed with the plaint or its

alternative price? OPP

2. Relief

5. In order to prove the case, plaintiff herself Put her

appearanceas PW-1 and tenderedher affidavit as Exh.P-1in consonance

of the contentsof her plaint. Shewas crossexamined at length. In order to

support her version Muhammad RamzanaPpearedas PW-2 and tendered

his affidavit as Exh.P-3but srrbsequentlyPW-2 was given uP and was not

subjected to cross examination. After tendering the documents Exh'P-2

and Exh.P-4,the plaintiff s side closed the evidence.On the other hand

defendant appearedas DW-1 and tendered his affidavit as Exh.D-l. and

side the
closed
defendanfs
the evidence,
6. After hearing the arguments,the learned trial Court/Judge

Family Court, Choubara partially decreed the suit of plaintiff which was

impugned by her through instant appeal.

T. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff

that impugned judgment & decreepassedby the learned trial court/Judge

 ,/ /,'

Mst. ZuhedaBibi ucrsusHabib Ullah

Family Court is outcome of misreading and non-reading of evidence. He

further added that learned trial court while passing the impugned

judgment & decree has not applied the judicial mind and badly ignored

this fact that plaintiff has proved her claim through oral as'well as the

documentary evidence. He next argued that learned trial court decreed

less alternate price of the dowry articles without appreciiating the evidence

available on the record. Thus, learned trial court ignored the evidence led

by the plaintiff, rn'hile passing the impugned judgment & decree, which is

liable to be modified. as prayed for.

8. Learned counsel for the defendant has argued that findings

of the learned trial court on issues is in accordance with law and the same

is not result of mis-reading and non-reading of evidence. He further r

added that parents of plaintiff had no financial capacity to gift her dowry

articles as claimed by her. He next argued that learned trial court has

already decreed alternate value of dowry articles while plaintiff was not

gifted dowry articles of such a huge amount as her fat-her was a poor

person. Lastly, it has been prayed that appeal in hand may kindly !s
0\
)r \t dismissed.
'J^t
- I

.t,. - r)

- a f
9. Arguments heard, record perused.
'
l-dr*\-
- t B I
./ ^
'4
t t_ I
.Q'' 'r),i',io*r. 10. Point of consideration involved in this appeal is as to
rI urr".r,,ur+
'/tJ
whether plaintiff is entitled to recover her dowry articles or its alternate

price as prayed for by her through her suit?

17, Perusal of record reveals that in order to pfove her assertion,

plaintiff appeared as PW-L and also submitted her sworn #fidavit as

Exh.P-l. She also submitted list of dowry articles as Exh.P-2. Perusal of list

of dowry articles shows that as many as 34 articles are mefltioned being

the dowry articles and prices of such articles are also rhentioned i.e total

thecontroversy,
In orderto ascertain
Rs.13,46,800/-. statusofher
lindncial

father is very much important, as to whether he was able to gift her rn'ith
 )/"
Mst. ZubedaBibi oersusHahih Ullah

such a huge prices' Scanning

such a Iarge number of dowry articles with
regarding financial
of the record shows that she has not narrated anything

in her sworn affidavit'

condition of her parents neither in her plaint nor
"Fard-e-
However, during her documentary evidence, she tendered

her father is owner

Malkiya t" ofher father as Exh .P-4, which reflects that

District Layyah'
of 537 kanal land in Mouza Nawan Kot, Tehsil Choubara'

by the revenue
However, it is noteworthy that Exh.P4 was not issued
revenue
officer and does not bear stamp and signature of concerned

admitted
officer. Moreover, PW-1 herself during her cross examination

was Barani
this fact as correct that most of land belonged to her father

plaintiff was
land (ir;b). From this it was established that father of the

owner of the U*ul (;t;t.; land.

12. Another fact which is mention worthy is that PW-1 during

the
her cross examination admitted it as conect that defendant had not

facility of electricity in his house. If she went to'the house after her

',rukhsati" where no facility of electricity was available, then this fact does

not attract to prudent mind that so much electronic articles are mentioned

of
4on in the list annex-A were given to her to be used merely on the facility

,::iW
-,r6n,".y,eo
\t)
n "solar plates".

13. It is wro.g ptultice in our society, when plaintiff demands

recovery of her dowry articles she makes her claim in excess whereas on

the other side defendant/husband altogether negated the gifting of dowry

articles to her. Therefore, the court has left with no option, but to balance

inviewthematerial
keeping
rherwosides, ontherec0rd.
available
1.4. As far as the gold orruments are concerned, in this regard I

am agreed to the findings of learned trial court/Judge Family Court as

gold ornaments are always kept by the rvives and they hardly hands ovcr

the custody of the same to someone else, even to their husbands, whereas
 j;

no forceful snatching of gold ornaments could be established by the

plaintiff. Therefore, the claim of plaintiff for recovery of gold ornaments is

rightly turned down by learned trial court.

15. In the same way plaintiff has also clairned two cow valuing

Rs.2,40,000/-,8 sheep and 5 goats. The plaintiff in her plaint as well as in

her evidence did not mention colour of the above said cattle. She also has

not mentioned the age, breed etc., of the cattle. Therefore, claim of plaintiff

for recovery of cattle is rightly turned down by learned tuial court.

1.6. This fact is also noteworthy that marriage of the parties was

solemnized 8/9 years prior to the institution of the suit. Therefore, factor

of wear and tear is also to be considered and value of rnany of the art'icles

has certainly been diminished or some of the articles have lost its value

due to its use for many years. In these circumstances, Iearned trial

court/]udge Family Court has rightly deprived the plaintiff from the

articles of daily use.

77. Under the sequel and upshot of above mentioned attending

circumstances, instant appeal is devoid of merits ancl therefore is

dismissed. Resultantly, impugned judgment & dedree passed bv tire

iearned trial/Judge Family Court is upheld ancl maintainerl. There is no

orcier as to costs. Decree sheet be drarvn. Recorcl of lcarned trial court

alongwith copy of this judgment be sent back to learned trial court for

information. File be consigned to record room after its due completion.

q-\
{\
Announced. sycdsuylla\zlfur,
13.01.2020 Addl. District Judge, Lay'r'ah,
Camp at Choubara.

certified that this judgment spreads over five (05) pages,

which have beendictated,read,correctecland signed b1rme.
,'i
,'+9,1". e\
t+ i
t:

ii t i- - Dated:-13.01.202A
i\
\
Adcll.DistrictJudgb,tX-uyo
tL-
h,
L
Ir .
Ir
J'. \.
\ .-.
Camp at Choubara.
l-