2010 PLP 836 (CLC)

S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J.

It is prayed through this writ petition that the impugned judgments and decrees, dated 19-3-2008, 19-6-2008 passed by learned trial Court and the learned Appellate Court dated 19-12-2008 be set aside.

2. The facts precisely are that the respondent No.4 filed a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance for herself and minor respondent No.5, while petitioner filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights and as a result of findings, suit to the extent of respondent No.4 was partially decreed and to the extent of respondent No.5, maintenance allowance @ Rs.2000 from the date of institution of the suit till her legal entitlement with 7% enhancement per annum was decreed. Respondent No.4 brought another suit for recovery of dowry articles which was contested by the petitioner. After recording of the evidence, decree to the tune of Rs.1,66,700 was granted. Petitioner and respondent No.4 preferred appeals which were allowed only to the extent of enhancement of maintenance allowance of the minor from 7% to 10% per annum.

3. It is argued by the learned counsel that father of respondent No.4 was brother of father of the petitioner who expired before the Nikah and she was not given any dowry being an orphan. There was no evidence for delivery of articles and the documentary evidence produced is without any corroboration and that nevertheless the learned lower Courts have passed the decrees. Similarly the maintenance allowance to respondent No.5 has also been challenged.

4. Heard. Perusal of the judgments and decrees annexed with this petition reveals that the brother of respondent No.4 was having ample sources to give dowry articles to respondent No.4 at the time of marriage. The brother of respondent No.4 is having a property in the commercial area and running shops and wheat grinding machine. The receipts of purchase of articles were exhibited as Exts.P1 to P

7. The respondent No.4 was subjected to lengthy cross-examination on each and every item. Petitioner appeared as D.W.1 and has admitted the delivery of certain articles. However, he denied the price fixed. Learned trial Court thrashed out the evidence and believed only certain articles which have been proved. Respondent No.4 claimed Rs.2,96,230 as its equivalent amount but the decree was passed to the extent of Rs.1,66,

700. The learned counsel for petitioner failed to point out any illegality in appreciation of evidence. Moreover, petitioner is having a business and is an earning hand and at one stage, he refused the appointment of the Local Commission in order to ascertain his monthly earning. It is the duty of the petitioner to provide maintenance to his minor daughter, respondent No.5. The maintenance allowance fixed is not beyond his means. The petition stands dismissed in limine. H.B.T./A-323/L Petition dismissed.