ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Const. Petition No.S-59 of 2021

 

Date

               Order with signature of Judge

           

                          

1.    For orders on CMA No.1737/2021

2.    For orders on CMA No.1738/2021

3.    For hearing of main case

4.    For orders on CMA No.1739/2021

 

 08-03-2021

                     

Mr. Abdul Wahab G. Shaikh, Advocate for the petitioner

 

O R D E R

 

NAZAR AKBAR, J:-          This constitution petition is directed against the Judgment dated 01.02.2021, passed by the learned Additional District  Judge (MCACs), Kandiaro, whereby Family Appeal No.13/2020 filed by Respondent No.1 was allowed.

2.         Precisely, the facts of the case are that Respondent No.1/Plaintiff filed Family Suit No.167/2019, for recovery of maintenance and return of dowery articles against the Petitioner/Defendant. The said suit was partly decreed by judgment dated 17.03.2020 in favour of Respondent No.1, whereby, the trail Court allowed the maintenance of minor son at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month from filing of suit till  date, and for future at  the same rate with 15% annual increment till his attaining age of majority, however, her prayers for return of dowery articles and recovery of her maintenance from the defendant, was declined, therefore, she preferred Family Appeal against the said judgment, which was partly allowed and judgment of the trial court was modified by increasing maintenance of minor from Rs.2500/- per month to Rs.5000/- per month. Therefore, the Petitioner being aggrieved by the said judgment of the appellate Court has preferred instant constitution petition.

 3.                 Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there are conflicting judgments of two courts below as the learned appellate court allowed the family appeal filed by respondent No.1 Mst. Farah Naz by modifying the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court.

4.                  I have gone through the impugned judgments in which I have noticed that both the Courts below have dealt with the evidence available on record. The trial Court on the basis of documentary evidence available on record has decreed the suit in favour of Respondents No.1. The appellate Court has also written a comprehensive judgment and maintained the judgment and decree of the trial court with modification to the extent of increase of maintenance of minor. There is no reference of the evidence in the petition to claim any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgments. Besides, the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction cannot re-examine the same evidence to come to a different conclusion.

5.                  In view of the above, instant petition is dismissed along with listed applications, with no order as to costs.

                                                                                           JUDGE

 

 

Suleman Khan/PA