Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

📌 Short Summary The petitioner challenged concurrent judgments of the Family Court and Appellate Court that dissolved the marriage through Khula and upheld maintenance awarded to the wife during the iddat period. He argued that both courts misread evidence, wrongly ignored witness statements, and failed to properly consider alleged dowry/dower-related facts. The High Court held that under Article 199, it cannot act as a court of appeal or reappreciate evidence in family matters. It further observed that concurrent findings of fact are binding unless shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. Since the petitioner failed to point out any jurisdictional defect or illegality, the petition was dismissed. 📚 Sections / Legal Provisions Used Article 199 – Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 Principles of Family Law appellate finality (no further appeal beyond statutory forum) Doctrine of concurrent findings (judicial precedent rule) Case law relied: 2023 SCMR 1434 🧾 2 Two-Word Descriptions Khula Challenge Concurrent Findings       ORDER SHEET  Through the instant constitutional petition, the petitioner has impugned the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2024 passed by the learned XXVth Civil & Family Judge, Karachi East, in Family Suit No.1664 of 2023, whereby the marriage between the parties was dissolved by way of Khula. The petitioner has further assailed the judgment dated 17.10.2025 passed by the learned IInd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Karachi East, in Family Appeal No.319 of 2024, whereby the appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court were maintained. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present petition against the concurrent findings of the two courts below. The case of the petitioner is that both the courts below have erred in law and facts while decreeing the suit filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff. He submits that although the dowry articles were allegedly returned to respondent No.1, such fact was not properly appreciated by the courts below. It is further contended that the learned Trial Court awarded maintenance to respondent No.1 at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month…