IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Before:

Mr. Justice Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro

Constt: Petition No.S-175/2024

Petitioner:                                          Mst. Aisha Bibi

                                                            Through Mr. Abid Hussain Qadri,                                                                           Advocate.

Respondents No.1 & 2:                    Through M/s. Faheem Abro and Sadam Hussain, Advocates.

Respondents No.3 & 4:                    Through Mr. Abdul Waris Bhutto, Assistant Advocate General, Sindh.

Date of hearing:                                05-05-2025

Date of Order:                                   05-05-2025

O R D E R

Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro J.- The petitioner through this petition has challenged judgment dated 06.04.2024 (impugned judgment) passed by the court of learned District Judge, Jacobabad (appellate court), wherein judgment and decree dated 11-09-2023 passed by trial court was modified and the suit was decreed to the extent of maintenance for idat period and the dowry articles which were acknowledged by the judgment debtor in the written statement.   

2.                     The facts of the case are that the petitioner filed family suit No.45/2023 for recovery of dowry articles, dower and maintenance before the court of learned Family Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Jacobabad (trial court). Respondent filed his written statement and based upon divergent pleadings of parties trial court framed four issues wherein the issue No.1 was with regard to the recovery of dowry articles.

3.                     The parties filed their affidavit in evidence and were cross-examined at length. The trial court vide judgment and decree dated 11.09.2023, decreed the suit of the petitioner as prayed along with a maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month for the idat period. The respondent No.1 & 2 filed Appeal No. 11/2023 before the Court of District Judge, Jacobabad. The appellate court after hearing the parties, modified the judgment and decreed the suit of petitioner for payment of maintenance for idat period at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month and of the dowry articles acknowledged by the respondent No.1 in his written statement.

4.                     Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate court committed material illegality and irregularity, there is an apparent misreading and non-reading of evidence on record, the petitioner has proved the case of recovery of dowry articles as she had filed the list of articles before the trial court and examined witnesses who fully supported her version. The petitioner and her witnesses were cross-examined at length by the respondents but could not shatter their confidence and the evidence of all the plaintiff’s witnesses was supportive and consistent. He prayed for allowing petition.

5.                     The counsel for respondent No.1 and 2 submits that appellate court after proper appraisal of evidence, modified the decree and the judgment debtor Asad Ali is ready to handover the decreed articles to the petitioner but she is not willing to take the same.

6.                     Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused material available on record.

7.                     The evidence of the petitioner available at page No.33 of the petition, reflects that she was put a particular question regarding the receipts of the purchase of dowry articles but she failed to produce the same. Under the Bridal Gifts and Dowry Restrictions Act, 1976, all the dowry articles are deemed to be the bridal gifts, as the dowry in all eventualities goes to the bride. But for the purpose of claiming those articles in case the marriage between the parties stands dissolved, the person who approaches the court for recovery of those articles is burdened a duty to prove its case beyond the reasonable doubt. The plaintiff/petitioner has attached a list of almost about 31 articles in which the certain articles are ordinarily given to the bride at the time of marriage and such articles have also been acknowledged by the respondent No.1 in his evidence. The rest of the articles which are not been admitted by the respondent No.1 are not ordinarily given to the bride at the time of marriage. In para No.5 of the written statement, available at page No.23, the respondent No.1 has admitted in all 34 articles which were given to the petitioner at the time of marriage. Since, the plaintiff had failed to prove her case that the dowry articles mentioned in the list were given to her in marriage, the appellate court rightly appraised the evidence on record and modified the judgment and decree.

8.                     This court under its constitutional jurisdiction conferred under Article 199 of Constitution of Pakistan, exercises powers which are corrective and supervisory in nature and sparingly used. This Court exercised its supervisory powers when it comes to the conclusion that the court below has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it or exercised the jurisdiction which was not vested in it. The counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out that the orders passed by the appellate court, in any manner, were illegal, arbitrary or capricious, no case for indulgence of this court under its writ jurisdiction is made out. Consequently, this petition fails and is dismissed accordingly.

                        JUDGE

Zakir/P.A