Order Sheet

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

C. P. No. S – 3841 of 2014

C. P. No. S – 3842 of 2014

Before :

Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui

Date of hearing : 01.03.2019.

Sardar Akbar F. Ujjan, Advocate for the petitioner in both petitions.

Mr. Shakeel Ahmed Kalwar, Advocate for respondent No.4 in both petitions.

Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Naich, Assistant Advocate General Sindh.

O R D E R

MUHAMMAD SHAFI SIDDIQUI, J. – Respondent No.4 filed a suit for dissolution of marriage and recovery of dowry articles. Petitioner contested the suit and filed written statement.

2. Respondent, being plaintiff, recorded her evidence and was subjected to cross-examination. Basran, mother of the plaintiff also recorded her evidence and was also subjected to cross-examination. In the similar way, Ranjhan / defendant recorded his evidence and so also Abdul Hakeem, who is the brother of Ranjhan; they were subjected to cross-examination. Nikah Khuwan Mehar Din was also examined.

3. The trial Court framed the following issues:

“ 1. Whether the suit is not maintainable at law?

2. Whether dowry articles shown as Annexure A given to plaintiff at the time of her marriage are lying with defendant in his house?

3. Whether plaintiff is entitle (sic) for relief claimed?

4. What should the decree be? ”

4. The suit was held as maintainable, whereas, the issue with regard to dowry articles was decided in affirmative and the plaintiff / respondent was entitled to claim the dowry articles as mentioned at Ex.20/C to 20/E i.e. one iron, hotpot, cooler, one balti, one dinner set, thermos, 24 cups, one almirah, one fridge, one Mercedes fan, one TV Akira and other articles or equal amount of the aforesaid articles.

5. Aggrieved with it, both plaintiff and defendant preferred appeals as Appeals No.03 and 04 of 2014, which were decided by a common judgment dated 14.11.2014. To the extent of dowry articles, the findings of the trial Court to some extent were challenged by plaintiff / respondent.

6. I have perused the evidence as well as pleadings.

7. Mst. Sharifan, plaintiff on oath deposed as under:

“ My marriage had taken place with Ranjho about one year back. Brother of my husband Hakeem present before the court fought with me and and (sic) snatched Leelum from me. About three months my husband conducted good relation with me but lateron (sic) at the instance of his brother he started fighting with me. My parents had given me dowery (sic) articles at the time of marriage and that dowery (sic) articles are lying in the house of my husband as yet. This court pronounced Talak to me by Judgment dated 7.12.12. One fridge, TV, Fan, two cots, one Almerah (sic) one dinner set, one steel dinner set, one hot pot, one cooler and one Thermas (sic), two sets of cups, one iron, one Chakra of meals, two wall mirrors, 100 sewed clothes having birth and 30 simple sewed clothes, two Thals, one Batli, one Ajrak, one cap, two wall clocks, three boxes, one bag, 10 Rilhis, 10 Pellow (sic) having birth, 4/5 blankets, four quiet, one Patti of utencils (sic) to be fixed in wall two romals for meals, two tola gold, one pair of gold Jhumkyoon, two mobile phones, cash of Rs.20,000/- given to Ranjho for expenses out of which Rs.10,000/- were returned while still Rs.10,000/- are outstanding against him, six pairs of my Sandals, one large purse. We had given cash of Rs.1,21000/- to Hakeem brother of my husband who purchased gold from Gold smith Zubair of Kandiaro town and obtained receipt in his name which was delivered to us. I produce original receipts five in numbers regarding gold, fridge, fan and other articles on record at Ex. 20/A to 20/E respectively. ”

8. Although she was subjected to cross-examination but substantial facts were never subjected to any question and in fact have gone unrebutted. Some unrelated questions were asked that the father of the plaintiff used to drive donkey cart and that whether the father of the plaintiff was taxpayer etc., but no substantial questions regarding dowry articles as mentioned in her examination-in-chief recorded on oath were raised. In our society, mothers start saving and collecting dowry articles long time before daughter’s marriage. After this unrebutted evidence, even otherwise, the question of receipts and stamps of shopkeeper is immaterial and it was rightly held by the appellate Court that when these receipts were written on the letterheads describing the subject shops, the seal / stamps on it is immaterial.

9. As against this, the evidence of brother of the petitioner / defendant in suit is immaterial. The amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and gold as mentioned in the nikahnama was never acknowledged by plaintiff and more importantly it was apparently paid to father of the bride / plaintiff.

10. The petitioner has every right to pursue his remedy against it, which he failed. The amount paid to the father could never be considered as the dower amount paid to the bride and that she was liable to return at the time of dissolution of marriage by way of khulla. Even the ring as mentioned in the nikahnama was refused / declined to have been received by her and no confidence inspiring evidence was recorded by the defendant to believe that version. In this constitution petition such deeper re-appraisal of evidence is not within the domain of this Court when two efficacious remedies i.e. trial Court and appellate Court were exhausted.

11. In view of above, these petitions were dismissed along with pending application(s), if any, vide short order dated 01.03.2019 and these are the reasons for the same.

J U D G E

Abdul Basit