2011 PLP 424 (YLR)

SYED AKHLAQ AHMAD, J.--Through this constitutional petition, Munir Ahmad/petitioner/defendant wants this court to declare the judgment and decree dated 21-6-2010 passed by the learned Judge Family Court and judgment and decree dated 4-9-2010 passed by the Additional District Judge Faisalabad to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. Facts giving rise to this petition are that Bashiran Bibi respondent No.1 is the wife while Maryam Bibi is the daughter of Munir Ahmad petitioner/defendant. They filed suit for recovery of maintenance and dowry before the Judge Family Court Faisalabad demanding maintenance @ Rs.5,000 per head per month and recovery of dowry as per list attached with the plaint or a sum of Rs.78,100 as its price in lieu thereof. Suit was resisted whereupon five issues were framed. The parties led evidence. Learned Judge Family Court vide his judgment and decree dated 21-6-2010 allowed maintenance to Bashiran Bibi/ respondent No. 1/plaintiff @ Rs.2000 per month from 14-1-2010 till the period of Iddat and Maryam Bibi/minor daughter of the petitioner @ Rs.1500 per month with 25% annual increase till her marriage. Respondent No.1/plaintiff was also held entitled to recover dowry articles as per list Exh.D-3 tendered by the petitioner/ defendant or a sum of Rs.40,000 as its price in lieu thereof.

3. Feeling aggrieved by this judgment, the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge Faisalabad vide judgment dated 4-9-2010. Hence, this writ.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the amount of maintenance was not assessed by both the courts below properly inasmuch as the petitioner has no means to pay the decreed maintenance. It is further contended that the evidence produced by the petitioner was not properly read and appreciated.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner with care and find that both the courts below have not flouted the provisions of relevant law and have considered and decided the question of maintenance in accordance with the guiding principles laid down by the superior Courts. The courts below have concurrently assessed the maintenance of respondent No.1 Rs.2000 per month from 14-1-2010 till the period of Iddat and for respondent No.2 @ Rs.1500 per month with 25 % annual increase till her marriage. It has come during cross-examination of Munir Ahmad petitioner/defendant as DW-2 that he works as labourer and also runs the cart. Keeping in view the price hike prevailing in the country, the granted maintenance is nominal and is not on the excessive side. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any misreading or non-reading of material evidence which might have affected the concurrent judgments of both the courts below. For all these reasons, I am of the view that no case for interference with the impugned judgment and decree of both the courts below in exercise of constitutional powers of this court is made out. The writ petition has no merits and the same is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M-629/L Petition dismissed.