Order Sheet

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

C. P. No. S – 2088 of 2017

Before :

Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui

Date of hearing: 07.12.2018.

Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Qazi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Raj Kumar D. Rajput, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Mehboob Ali Wassan, Assistant Advocate General Sindh.

O R D E R

MUHAMMAD SHAFI SIDDIQUI, J. – This petition impugns judgments of two Courts below that concern the maintenance of children and the dowry articles. Suit for recovery of maintenance and dowry articles was filed by respondent No.1 to 4 against the petitioner, which was contested. After filing of the written statement, the parties recorded their evidence.

2. Out of the wedlock parties were blessed with three children namely Abdul Rehman, Abdul Rahim and Sehrish. Respondent No.1, being plaintiff in the suit, claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month for each child i.e. respondents No.2 to 4. Respondent No.1 Mst. Haseena, being plaintiff No.1, recorded her evidence and she was subjected to cross-examination whereas respondent No.1’s brother Orangzeb alias Farooq also deposed evidence and was subjected to cross-examination. From the petitioner’s side petitioner recorded his evidence and he was also subjected to cross-examination. In view of consideration of the evidence recorded by the parties the suit was decreed to the extent of Rs.3000/- per month for each child and the dowry articles, which findings were maintained by the appellate Court.

3. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the material available on record.

4. In the examination-in-chief the respondent No.1 deposed that at the time of her marriage, his father gave dowry articles such as swing machine, one ceiling fans, pedestal fan, two iron boxes, one juicer machine, one dinner set marble, three plastic dinner set, one sofa set, one cupboard, one show-case, one dressing table, one master foam, two buffalos, two calves, one hotpot set and other household articles, 3 Tola golden set, ½ Tola bracelet and 1 Tola golden ring. All these articles were shifted to the defendant/petitioner. She was subjected to cross-examination. The relevant question that was put to her was that she was not aware as to in how many vehicles these articles were shifted to the house of petitioner / defendant.

5. She (plaintiff / respondent No.1) was also “suggested” that the dowry articles were lying in the cattle-ponds where they (husband and wife) shifted. She was “suggested” that these dowry articles were not shifted in presence of witnesses and that she has not produced the receipts of golden ornaments. She was “suggested” that her father used to sell vegetables. She denied that her father was a poor man and did not give these dowry articles.

6. On the other hand, in the examination-in-chief the defendant No.1 / petitioner deposed contrary to the defence that he has taken though he was cross examined by the plaintiff / respondent that her father was a poor person but in the examination-in-chief the petitioner himself stated that his in-laws gave dowry articles to the plaintiff / respondent No.1 i.e. iron box, the sofa set, the iron cupboard, the other cupboard, washing machine, pedestal fan and that golden ornaments were taken by the plaintiff / respondent No.1 from his house.

7. Two things are admitted in the cross-examination of the petitioner / defendant No.1; first is that certain dowry articles were retained by him and that in the other set of evidence he stated that only golden ornaments were taken away by the plaintiff / respondent No.1 from the house. The first part insofar as above dowry articles are concerned, the same are admitted whereas for the other dowry articles i.e. golden ornaments, the burden was on defendant / petitioner to establish that she (respondent No.1) took away all of them.

8. In the circumstances, there is no iota of evidence to discharge the above facts and hence it is not a case of misreading and non-reading of evidence. The evidence is not such which could upset the findings of the two Courts below which are concurrent in nature. The petition as such is dismissed and these are the reasons for the same.

J U D G E

Abdul Basit