' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN, J.--Zafar Iqbal petitioner by way of filing instant writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 prays that the judgments and decrees of the Courts below i,e, Judge Family Court. And Additional District Judge, Peshawar, dated 28-9-20b1 and 11-12-2002 respectively, be declared illegal, without jurisdiction and without lawful authority and suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with costs.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that Zafar Iqbal petitioner married Mst. Uzma Nausheen respondent No,1 on 13-6-1995 in consideration of Rs,1,50,000 as dower amount. The couple lived together for about eight months and thereafter the relations between the couple started deteriorating due to stated cruel treatment of the petitioner. Ultimately, the petitioner expelled the respondent out of his house and neglected to pay her dower and maintenance allowance which necessitated the respondent to file suit for dissolution of marriage and recovery of dower and maintenance allowance. The suit was resisted and the allegations of the respondent were controverted.
Necessary issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties were formulated and the parties produced evidence in support of their respective contentions. The learned Judge Family Court, Peshawar proceeded to hold that respondent-wife is entitled for a decree for dissolution of marriage, recovery of Rs,1,50,000 cash as remaining dower and Rs,2,000 per month as maintenance allowance since 25-1-1997 till date and onward till expiry of the `Jddat' period. Having held so, the suit was decreed in the above terms vide judgment and decree dated 28-9-2001. An appeal was preferred thereagainst before Additional District Judge, Peshawar which was dismissed on 11-12-2002 with the slight modification that maintenance allowance was reduced from Rs,2,000 to Rs,1,000 per month.
3. Mr. Muhammad Tariq Afridi, Advocate appeared on behalf of Zafar Iqbal petitioner and assailed the impugned judgments and decrees principally on the ground that overwhelming evidence was available on the record to counter the allegations of the respondent but such evidence was ignored altogether which has materially prejudiced the rights of the petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that dower amount stood paid at the time of marriage and that the respondent left the house of the petitioner of her own without any fault on the part of the petitioner and thus the learned trial Judge was not correct to hold the respondent entitled for recovery of maintenance allowance. The submissions of the learned counsel are devoid of force. It needs no reiteration that a wife is entitled to claim maintenance for herself- if she is forced to live apart from the husband on account of the acts of cruelty attributed to the husband. The maintenance is neither a nature of a gift or a benefit but is an undeniable legal obligation of the husband to maintain his wife who is not staying away from him without just cause. In order to constitute a valid marriage Islamic Law ordains that there should always be a consideration made by the husband in favour of the wife. It is a settlement and a pre-condition of valid marriage. We have gone through the impugned judgment and decrees and we find that valid and cogent reasons have been given for dissolution of marriage and recovery of dower and maintenance allowance which hardly warrant interference of this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction. The learned counsel has not been able to make out a case of misreading or non-reading of material evidence. The object of taking away right of appeal under family matters especially against dissolution of marriage is meaningful. If the c Constitutional jurisdiction takes place of appeal, then the intent and purpose of Legislature would be frustrated. Finding of fact recorded by the competent lower Court would not be open to interference by High D Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Order cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction, unless the same is mala fide, arbitrary, perverse or the Court has acted in excess of its jurisdiction.
4. Pursuant to above discussion, finding no force in this writ petition we dismiss the same in limine.