2013 PLP 993 (MLD)

MIAN FASIH-UL-MULK, J.

Petitioner, Ameer Hussain, through this Constitutional Petition, has assailed the judgments and orders of learned lower Courts and prayed that the same be declared to have been illegal, unlawful, and of no legal effect.

2. Facts in brief are that respondent No.1 filed a suit for recovery of dower and maintenance allowance in the Court of learned Civil Judge/Judge Family Court, Swabi which was contested by the petitioner by filing written statement. Issues were framed and accordingly evidence of both the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court after hearing arguments of both the parties, partially decreed the suit of respondent No.1 to the extent of dower i.e. 2 tola gold ornament and maintenance allowance @ Rs.1500 per month for past four months and onwards while decree for restitution of conjugal rights subject to payment of dower has been granted in favour of petitioner vide judgment and decree dated 13-12-2010. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said judgment and order, two appeals were filed, one by respondent No.1 bearing No. 1/FCA of 2011 and the other filed by petitioner bearing No. 2/FCA of 2011 in the Court of learned Additional District Judge-IV, Swabi, who vide consolidated judgment and decree dated 11-6-2011 modified the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court to the extent of dower land measuring 4 kanals in favour of respondent No.1 while the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed, hence this Writ Petition.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the available record.

4. Perusal of the record would reveal that the learned trial Court while giving finding on issues Nos. 4 and 5 has held that though respondent No. 1 has produced the dower deed Exh.P.W.4/2 wherein it has been mentioned that her dower was fixed as 4 kanals of land and two tolas gold ornament but the learned trial Court while granting decree to the extent of two tolas gold ornament, refused her remaining claim on the ground that neither she had mentioned the boundaries of the alleged 4 kanals of land nor mentioned its khasra number nor fard was attached to the agreement deed although she did produce its marginal witnesses who stated that petitioner has duly thumb impressed it in their presence while stance of the petitioner is that the dower was fixed as Rs.2000 which has already been paid to her on the wedding night. While discussing the above said issues, the learned Appellate Court has rightly modified the findings of learned trial Court to the extent of dower by observing that petitioner has failed to produce any cogent or reliable evidence regarding fixation of Rs.2000 as dower or its payment to respondent No.1, who has proved its claim through cogent evidence and only non-mentioning of boundaries of alleged land or its khasra number would not deprive her from her legal rights. Once it is proved that dower of respondent No.1 was fixed as per Exh.P.W.4/2, then no valid exception could be taken to the well reasoned findings of the Appellate Court.

5. So far as the plea raised by the respondent No. 1 regarding maintenance allowance is concerned, the learned Appellate Court has held that the learned trial Court has rightly fixed the same @ Rs.1500 per month keeping in view the financial position of the petitioner and this Court cannot interfere with it.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner, in view of above facts on record, is unable to show any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment of the Appellate Court, which being not suffering from any legal infirmity or jurisdictional defect, cannot be disturbed in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.

7. For the above reasons we find no merit in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed as such. AG/119/P Petition dismissed.